John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, 17-1732

John H. Davis (an attorney), his ex-wife Shelia, and their adult autistic son Eric filed a sprawling complaint in federal court alleging wrongful child-custody actions by Alabama officials and agencies; the initial pleading was 574 pages plus 429 pages of exhibits.
The district court struck the original pleading for violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and gave the plaintiffs 60 days to replead succinctly.
Davis filed a 165‑page amended complaint (with the same 429 pages of exhibits); the court found it still violated Rules 8 and 10 (including lengthy, multi‑topic paragraphs and failure to number paragraphs properly).
A second amended complaint (215 pages plus same exhibits) was filed without required consent or leave and was struck; the first amended complaint remained operative.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice for repeated, flagrant noncompliance with Rules 8 and 10 after multiple opportunities to replead.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, dismissed Shelia and Eric as parties because Davis (a pro se litigant on appeal) cannot represent them, and ordered Davis to show cause why he should not face disciplinary action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended complaint complied with Rule 8 (short & plain statement)	Davis argued most lengthy material was "preliminary/chronology" and Rule 8 applies only to claims section	Defendants argued the entire pleading was unduly long, verbose, and failed to give fair notice	Court held pleading violated Rule 8; dismissal for noncompliance affirmed
Whether the amended complaint complied with Rule 10(b) (numbered paragraphs, single set of circumstances)	Davis contended counts section complied and other sections were exempt	Defendants argued allegations were not separated into numbered, limited paragraphs and counts were often single mammoth paragraphs	Court held pleading violated Rule 10(b); dismissal affirmed
Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion	Davis argued court could have ordered a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) instead of dismissal	Defendants and court stressed prior warnings and repeated failures to cure defects; repleading preferable to 12(e) in such cases	Court held dismissal with prejudice was within district court discretion given repeated, flagrant violations and prior opportunities to amend
Whether Davis may represent other plaintiffs on appeal	Davis continued to purport to represent Shelia and Eric pro se	Defendants argued a pro se party cannot represent others; required signatures absent	Court dismissed Shelia and Eric from appeal because a pro se litigant cannot represent other parties

Cole v. Comm’r, 637 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (pro se litigant may not represent others)
Nocula v. UGS Corp., 520 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2008) (same principle in district court)
Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard for dismissal under Rules 8 and 10; deference to district court)
Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2004) (Rule 10(b) requirements explained)
Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2013) (complaint subject to dismissal if unduly long or unintelligible)
U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (illustrating requirement for straightforward pleadings)
Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001) (preferable to require repleading rather than splitting allegations between complaint and a more definite statement)