Temujin Kensu v. Corizon, Inc.
5 F.4th 646
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Temujin Kensu (aka Frederick Freeman), an MDOC prisoner serving life for first-degree murder, brought a §1983 action alleging medical-deliberate-indifference and related claims against Corizon and MDOC employees after having filed multiple prior suits (including a prior jury verdict for deliberate indifference).
- Kensu's original complaint (Mar. 2019) spanned ~180 pages and 808 numbered allegations; the district court found it related to an earlier Kensu case and reassigned it.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (and joinder rules); the district court dismissed for violating Rule 8 but granted leave to amend, identifying specific defects (undated allegations, repetitive background, generic use of "Defendants", and potential preclusion by earlier suits).
- Kensu filed an amended complaint that modestly reduced size, but still failed to cure core defects; the court again dismissed with leave to amend and gave specific guidance.
- Kensu's second amended complaint grew to 108 pages and 579 allegations, attempted to limit claims by date but still alleged earlier conduct and used generic references; the district court dismissed with prejudice as a third strike and entered judgment for defendants.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard and explaining Rule 8 limits, appropriate remedies, and when dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint violated Rule 8(a) for being not "short and plain" and failing to give fair notice | Kensu maintained his pleadings (including tables/TOC and headings) adequately presented claims and that he narrowed allegations by date | Defendants argued pleadings were prolix, undated, repetitive of prior suits, used generic "Defendants," and deprived them and the court of fair notice | Court held complaint violated Rule 8 for excessive prolixity, vagueness, undated allegations, and generic attribution preventing fair notice |
| Proper standard of appellate review for Rule 8 dismissal | (implicit) Kensu suggested de novo review of legal pleading standards | Defendants and district court treated dismissal as within district court discretion | Court held abuse-of-discretion is the proper standard (district court better positioned on docket/record management) |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without (appropriate remedy) | Kensu argued dismissal was too harsh given liberal pleading standard and that he had tried to comply | Defendants argued prior opportunities and specific warnings justified dismissal with prejudice | Court held dismissal with prejudice was within discretion after repeated notices, specific guidance, cosmetic-only fixes, and warning that it was final |
| Whether courts must tolerate long complaints that nevertheless state coherent claims | Kensu argued his lengthy filing still conveyed claims (e.g., added headings/limits) | Defendants contended length plus ambiguity forced them to "fish" for claims and repeated litigated matters | Court held length alone is not dispositive but pleadings that are verbose, confusing, or redundant to the point that claims are disguised violate Rule 8 and may be sanctioned after warning |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement giving fair notice; plausibility standard for factual allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleaded facts must permit reasonable inference of defendant's liability)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Rule 8's notice-pleading purpose and limits)
- United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (court and defendants should not have to "fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud")
- Blake v. De Vilbiss Co., 118 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1941) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after repeated prolix pleadings)
- Frank B. Killian Co. v. United States, 269 F.2d 491 (6th Cir. 1959) (ambiguous pleadings may be dismissed but leave to amend appropriate)
- Sherman v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 251 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1958) (less-than-ideal pleadings may be cured by corrective motions; federal practice differs from state practice)
- In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 1996) (district courts need not have infinite patience; warn before dismissing with prejudice)
- Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1998) (district courts may use alternatives to dismissal for prolix complaints)