Opinion
06-0114-cv.
January 9, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant Walter N. Iwachiw, pro se, Sunnyside, New York.
Appearing for Defendants-Appellees Kenneth Novikoff Rivkin Radler LLP Uniondale, New York Attorney for Edward Gersh, Kevin Gersh, K.G. Corporation, West Hills Day Camp, Inc., and West Hills Management, Inc.
Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General New York, New York Attorneys for New York State, New York State Department of Environmental Conversation, and New York State Department of Transportation.
Gerald Podlesak Office of the Nassau County Attorney Mineola, New York Attorney for Nassau County, County Executive Thomas S. Gullota, Carl Schroeter and Nassau County Bureau of Real Estate.
Arlene Zwilling Office of the Suffolk County Attorney Happaugue, New York Attorney for Suffolk County, Suffolk County Police, Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency, Inc.
Craig M. Shields.
Glen Cove, New York Attorney for Camelot Village and Carl G. Paffendorf
Joseph E. Macy Berkman, Henoch, Peterson Peddy, P.C. Garden City, New York Attorney for Posiloco Scalamandre.
Maurice Levenborn Levenbron Stern Huntington, New York Attorney for South Huntington USFD.
James F. Matthews Huntington Town Attorney Huntington, New York Attorney for Town of Huntington, Town Board of Huntington, Supervisor Frank Petrone, and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington.
George Argiriou Keyspan Legal Department Hicksville, New York Attorney for Keyspan Energy Corp.
Yi Tuan Brunstein New York, New York Attorney for Charles B. Wang, Charles B. Wang, Inc. and Plainview Properties, LLC New York, New York.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
SUMAMRY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Walter Iwachiw, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.) dismissing his third amended complaint. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." A plaintiff must disclose sufficient information to permit the defendant "to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery." See Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991). This Court reviews a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 for abuse of discretion. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995). Dismissal under Rule 8(a) "is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." See Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted).
An independent review of Iwachiw's four complaints reveals that in none of them did he offer concise legal or factual arguments or bases for a suit against the multiple defendants he named. The district court was correct to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, as well as for failure to abide by the court's prior orders directing Iwachiw as to specific changes he should make to his complaint to bring it within Rule 8's parameters.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.