Opinion ID: 388061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the count two claim

Text: 48 Appellant's remaining contention, advanced in the second count of his complaint, is that at unspecified times unnamed members of Senator Cannon's staff rendered personal services for the Senator and his family while collecting their governmental salaries. 97 The District Court held that this allegation did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted because appellant had not point(ed) to one specific instance in which a member of Cannon's personal staff was paid out of public income for personal tasks he or she performed. 98 We agree though we do not consider the issue to be as straightforward as the District Court suggests. 49 Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that (i)n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. 99 It cannot be doubted that (n) ormally this means that the pleader must state the time, place and content of the false misrepresentations, the fact misrepresented and what was obtained or given up as a consequence of the fraud. 100 The rule serves to discourage the initiation of suits brought solely for their nuisance value, 101 and safeguards potential defendants from frivolous accusations of moral turpitude. 102 The need for this protection is especially acute where, as here, the principal defendant is an elected official whose reputation and position are particularly vulnerable to accusations of wrongdoing. 103 And because fraud encompasses a wide variety of activities, the requirements of Rule 9(b) guarantee all defendants sufficient information to allow for preparation of a response. 104 50 In the present case, plaintiff's allegations could hardly have been more generalized and vague. He did not specify which members of the Senator's staff were involved, and he left unstated just what personal services they performed and precisely when those activities occurred. He even failed to allege any neglect of official duties. 51 Rule 9(b) is not, however, to be read in isolation from other procedural canons. As Professor Moore notes, (t)he requirement of particularity does not abrogate Rule 8, 105 and it should be harmonized with the general directives in subdivisions (a) and (e) of Rule 8 that the pleadings should contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim or defense' and that each averment should be 'simple concise and direct.'  106 Viewed in this light, Rule 9(b)'s requirement of particularity is less certain a standard for measuring the sufficiency of a complaint, and we are constrained to probe deeper than the District Court did. 52 The rules of civil procedure are not to be strictly construed, 107 and a a litigant ought not be denied his day in court merely on the ground that his complaint is inartfully drawn. 108 The usual method for dealing with a nebulous complaint, then, is either to grant leave to amend 109 or to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. 110 Appellant now asks permission to file a more definite statement of the claim, a bill of particulars or ... to obtain the facts by discovery. 111 We think, however, that in the circumstances here the District Court's dismissal should be sustained. Appellant had more than eleven months from June 7, 1977, when appellees filed their motion to dismiss, until May 25, 1978, when the District Court issued its dismissal order to remedy the deficiencies of the original pleading. He made no effort to do so, and (a)bsent some indication as to what appellant ( ) might add to (his) complaint in order to make it viable, we see no reason to grant appellant( ) relief in this court which was not requested below. 112 53 The judgment appealed from is affirmed. 54 So ordered.