Baker v. City of Loveland, 686 F. App'x 619

Pro se plaintiff Brandon Baker sued the City of Loveland, the Loveland Police Department, and four individual officers, filing a 42–page, 398–paragraph amended complaint asserting 17 causes of action.
The district court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (failure to provide a short and plain statement of claims).
The amended complaint contained extensive legal argument and irrelevant material (e.g., Pullman/Younger abstention, bar complaint, statute-of-limitations and probable-cause treatises) and often failed to identify which defendant did what, when, or what right was violated.
Baker appealed, arguing (1) defendants are judicially estopped from challenging the pleading, (2) the court should have struck immaterial portions rather than dismiss, and (3) a cause of action is a primary right plus breach (not a remedy), which he claimed affected the dismissal.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss for Rule 8 violations and that judicial estoppel did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended complaint complied with Rule 8(a)	Baker argued his filings state claims; characterization of causes of action (primary right/breach) undermines dismissal	Defendants argued the complaint was prolix, filled with irrelevant legal argument, and failed to identify who did what	Court held complaint violated Rule 8; dismissal without prejudice was within district court discretion
Whether judicial estoppel barred defendants from challenging the complaint	Baker claimed defendants changed positions and therefore could not challenge pleading	Defendants maintained no position change that would trigger estoppel; prior Rule 8 deficiency in a different case was unrelated	Court held judicial estoppel did not apply
Whether court should have struck immaterial allegations instead of dismissing	Baker argued the remedy should be to strike excess, not dismiss	Defendants argued the complaint’s breadth made striking impracticable and plaintiff gave no indication he would narrow voluntarily	Court held dismissing was reasonable given burden of sifting and plaintiff’s conduct; dismissal within discretion
Whether plaintiff’s characterization of causes of action (primary right) affects dismissal	Baker argued the theoretical distinction meant dismissal was improper	Defendants said characterization does not cure pleading defects	Court held the conceptual point did not cure Rule 8 defects and would not change outcome

Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 8 dismissal)
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 8 requires intelligible claims to inform defendants)
Knox v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, 196 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1952) (purpose of Rule 8 is brevity, simplicity, and clarity)
Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (complaints may bury material allegations in a "morass of irrelevancies")
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988) (district courts may strike redundant or immaterial parts under Rule 12(f))
Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001) (irrelevant material does not always justify dismissal if complaint otherwise satisfies Rule 8)
Johnson v. Lindon City Corp., 405 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2005) (doctrine of judicial estoppel explained)