286 F. Supp. 3d 699
D. Md.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Michael Plumhoff sued multiple defendants (Central Mortgage Co., Freddie Mac, law firms and attorneys) alleging RICO and assorted federal/state constitutional, statutory, and common-law claims arising from foreclosure efforts on his home.
- Plaintiff filed an initial 61-page complaint and two amended complaints (the operative Second Amended Complaint is 68 pages); the pleadings were long, repetitive, and factually disorganized.
- The court twice instructed Plumhoff to replead to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (short, plain statement of claims and relief) and to identify amendments per Local Rule, but the amended filings remained confusing and noncompliant.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 8(a), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6); they also argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on plaintiff’s prior bankruptcy filings (ownership of claims by the bankruptcy estate).
- The court found the complaint failed the basic Rule 8(a) pleading requirements (overly verbose, repetitive, unclear which defendant committed what acts, inconsistent dates, and conclusory allegations), and plaintiff had already been given multiple chances to cure.
- The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a); the court did not need to reach the Rule 12(b)(6) merits. The court noted bankruptcy dismissals likely revested any estate claims back to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint satisfies Rule 8(a) pleading requirements | Plumhoff asserted numerous RICO and related claims in a lengthy narrative; argued facts/support are present | Defendants argued the complaint is verbose, disorganized, conclusory, and fails to give fair notice under Rule 8 | Court: Complaint fails Rule 8(a); dismissal with prejudice appropriate after prior chances to amend |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice or with prejudice | Implied request to proceed with claims (after amendments) | Defendants sought dismissal (did not limit to prejudice) and argued prejudice appropriate given repeated noncompliance | Court: Dismissal with prejudice because plaintiff had multiple opportunities and persisted in noncompliant pleading |
| Whether the court should address Rule 12(b)(6) merits | Plumhoff indirectly contended claims are viable (RICO, etc.) | Defendants alternatively argued failure to state a claim | Court: Did not reach 12(b)(6) because Rule 8 failure was dispositive |
| Whether the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction due to bankruptcy estate ownership | Plumhoff’s filings unclear whether claims were scheduled in bankruptcy | Defendants argued plaintiff’s pre-suit bankruptcies vested claims in the estate, depriving court of jurisdiction | Court: Not decided as a basis to dismiss; noted dismissals of bankruptcy cases generally revest claims to the debtor, so jurisdictional defect not established here |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requirements apply to all complaints and support dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6))
- Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1972) (complaint may be dismissed when it is incomprehensible labyrinthine prolixity)
- Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497 (D.D.C. 1977) (Rule 8 aims to give fair notice and sharpen issues; dismissal appropriate for untidy assortment of claims)
- Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905 (1st Cir. 1993) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of verbose amended complaint for Rule 8 violations)
- Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553 (D. Md. 1999) (pro se plaintiffs afforded latitude but must plead claims in an understandable and efficient manner)