Brewer v. Burns
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Brewer v. Burns, Judge Swain denied reconsideration and class certification but allowed Brewer 30 days to file a shorter amended complaint.
Dennis Sheldon Brewer, who must file any amended complaint within 30 days and generally limit it to 20 pages; the numerous defendants named in his pleading; and any proposed class members, whose claims Brewer cannot represent while proceeding without a lawyer.
What happened
In Brewer v. Burns, Dennis Sheldon Brewer, representing himself, filed thousands of pages against numerous federal officials, the City of New York, state officials, and private parties. The court had previously found that his operative pleading violated the rule requiring a short and plain statement of his claims, struck his amended complaint, and allowed him to file a new complaint of up to 20 pages.
Brewer asked the court to undo that order, accept his lengthy amended complaint, and certify a class action. He argued that his claims covered events spanning about 55 years and could not be presented within 20 pages. He also described the material he filed as including hundreds of pages of allegations and thousands of pages of evidence.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Brewer’s request for relief from the earlier order and denied class certification because a person representing himself cannot represent other people in a class action. The court gave Brewer 30 days to file an amended complaint no longer than 20 pages, with organized factual allegations and only defendants personally involved in the alleged violations.
The detailed version
- Brewer v. Burns · No. 1:23-cv-09605
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
Dennis Sheldon Brewer proceeded without a lawyer and filed this action against numerous federal officials, the City of New York, officials from various states, and private individuals and entities. The opinion states that his initial complaint was 1,108 pages, that he later filed 2,526 pages of “additional evidence,” and that he brought ten boxes of documents to the court as an amended complaint.
On December 1, 2023, the court treated the complaint and additional evidence as the operative pleading and found that it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. That rule requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court directed the Clerk of Court to strike the amended complaint from the docket, retain the ten boxes for 30 days so Brewer could pick them up, and gave Brewer 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court instructed him to identify the defendants and explain the claims, federal jurisdiction, and venue, and limited the amended complaint to 20 pages unless he provided reasons for exceeding that limit.
Motion for relief from the December 1 order
Brewer filed a motion asking the court to reconsider and strike the December 1 order, accept his amended complaint as submitted, and certify the case as a class action. The court construed the motion as one seeking relief from an order under Rule 60(b), which allows relief for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The court denied the request for relief. It held that the operative pleading, which spanned 3,634 pages, was not short and plain and placed an unjustified burden on the court and defendants. The court also held that a 20-page limit was adequate for a short and plain statement and that Brewer had not provided reasons for exceeding it. The court found that Brewer had not shown that any of the listed Rule 60(b) grounds or extraordinary circumstances applied.
The court stated that, if Brewer files an amended complaint, it must be no more than 20 pages and must name only individuals personally involved in the alleged violations. It also directed him to use concise, numbered paragraphs organized chronologically, identifying what allegedly occurred, when and where it occurred when possible, which defendant was responsible, and how the conduct allegedly violated his rights. The court stated that he did not need to submit evidence at that stage and referred him to the rules governing the joinder of claims and parties.
Class certification
Brewer also sought to certify a class action. The court denied that request because a nonlawyer proceeding without a lawyer may represent only his own interests and cannot assert claims on behalf of other people.
Disposition
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Brewer’s motion to strike the December 1 order and denied his request for class certification. The court granted him 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint no longer than 20 pages. It stated that, if he failed to comply without showing good cause, the Clerk of Court would be directed to enter judgment consistent with the December 1 order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court ruled on the sufficiency and format of the pleadings, the request for relief from an earlier order, and class representation; it did not decide the underlying allegations on their merits.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.