Lopes v. DeLeon

Background

Cornelius Lopes, a pro se plaintiff, filed a 455-page amended complaint on March 25, 2021, against numerous defendants. Matthew Rodriguez, identified in the opinion as the Acting Attorney General of California and a defendant, moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rodriguez argued that the complaint contained verbose and unintelligible statements that prevented him from determining the factual and legal basis for each claim asserted against each defendant. Lopes’s opposition to the motion was due May 5, 2021, but the opinion states that he had not filed one by the time of the order.

Ruling

The court granted Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss. It held that the amended complaint was “confusing, distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible” and therefore violated Rule 8(a). Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a clear statement of the basis for the claims; the court relied on precedent warning against requiring courts and defendants to work through an exceptionally prolix complaint to determine the plaintiff’s allegations.

The court stated that Lopes may move for leave to amend his complaint. It also warned that it would deny leave to amend if a proposed second amended complaint was again so extraordinarily prolix that reviewing and responding to it would require extreme effort. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice and does not decide whether Lopes’s underlying claims have merit.

Effect of the Order

The ruling granted the motion to dismiss filed by Rodriguez and rejected the amended complaint as presented. The opinion does not describe separate rulings on claims against the other defendants. Any further amendment would require Lopes to move for leave to amend, subject to the court’s warning about excessive length and lack of clarity.