Opinion
08-CV-2521 (RRM) (LB).
September 18, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on June 18, 2008. By order dated July 17, 2008, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that specifies the claims Plaintiff wishes to assert and the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff's amended complaint, received on August 25, 2008, fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and is DISMISSED for the reasons that follow.
DISCUSSION
The Court found Plaintiff's original complaint verbose and meandering, written in such a manner that made it impossible to discern the nature of his claims or the facts on which they were based. Furthermore, it was unclear what federal claims Plaintiff was trying to allege. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005) (Pleadings must give "fair notice" of a claim and "the grounds upon which it rests" to enable the opposing party to answer and prepare for trial, and to identify the nature of the case); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to submit an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. See Memorandum and Order dated July 17, 2008 (Docket No. 3).
As with the original complaint, the amended complaint is largely incomprehensible and fails to set forth the basis for a cause of action against any of the defendants. Plaintiff nominally invokes provisions of the United States Constitution, but does not name any governmental parties. Plaintiff's allegations, to the extent they are comprehensible, involve various grievances he has with his union and possible criminal violations (including assault and theft of services). Nowhere does the amended complaint state a cognizable basis for federal jurisdiction, however, and the Court can discern none through its own review of the amended complaint. As such, the amended complaint fails to provide "fair notice" of Plaintiff's claims or the legal basis therefor, as required by Rule 8. See Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (defining "fair notice" as "'that which will enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, allow the application of res judicata, and identify the nature of the case so that it may be assigned the proper form of trial.'") (quoting Simmons, 49 F.3d at 86)).
In dismissing the complaint, this Court is mindful that "the dismissal of a pro se claim as insufficiently pled is appropriate only in the most unsustainable of cases." Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 2008 WL 3294864, at *5 (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2008) (citing Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2008)); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). Here, however, because Plaintiff has already amended his complaint and his most recent pleading falls far short of meeting the pleading requirements of Rule 8, the action must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.