Dorkas Iris Delgaod-Shaten v. Corey E. Aheart, et al.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE DORKAS IRIS DELGAOD-SHATEN, i HONORABLE KAREN M, WILLIAMS Plaintiff, Civil Action Vv. | No, 26-2496 (KMW-SAK) COREY E. AHEART, ef ail. MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants. AND ORDER WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint seeking to raise a claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Each allegation in a complaint must therefore be "concise and direct." Fed, R. Civ, P. 8(e)(1). A District Court may dismiss a complaint sia sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8. Ruther v. State Kentucky Officers, 556 F. App'x 91, 92 Gd Cir. 2014). A complaint may therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 8 where the "complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." /d. (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir, 1995)), Here, Plaintiff's filing is a confounding 121 page submission that well and truly disguises any “true substance” that might exist within. For example, Plaintiff first purports to need accommodations and his request states: “For this PETITIONER/CLAIMANT of this MATTER IS with the [REJQUIREMENT(sic) of the [AC]COMMODATIONS(sic) with the LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATIONS of the USING-CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE- COMMUNICATION-PARSE-S YNTAX-GRAMMAR-PERFORMANCE,-C.-S.-S.-C.P.-S,-G.- P., with the BASE-UPON of my [REJLIGIOUS(sic)-BELIEFS/NATIONAL-[OR]IGIN(sic) AND
RACE-BELIEFS with this CLAIM by this CLAIMANT.” (ECF No. 1 at p. 4). Next, Plaintiff purports to provide a List of Authorities, which begins with “For the HISTORI (sic) AND LAWS of the BIBLE ARE with the MAN-KIND’S-FOUNDATION AND with the [U]niti(sic)-States-of- the-America AND New-Jersey-State-Territories CONSTITUTIONS’-FOUNDATION AND of the CORPORATING within this CONSTITUTION-CONTRACT.” (/d. at p. 6). The Complaint then lists and comments on various verses from the King James Version of the Bible, the United States Constitution, Articles | — VII, and Amendments one (1) through fifteen (15). (/d. at pp. 6- 22). For the next ninety-six (96) pages, the Complaint lists various laws, definitions, and comments that encompass everything from the Americans with Disabilities Act and Apartheid! to comments on the display of the flag.” (/d. at pp. 6-102). At page 103, the Complaint contains a header that reads, “; STATEMENT of the CASE.” (id. at p. 103). This section contains several more pages of purported authorities in the same manner as described above. (See ECF No. 1 at pp. 103-07), On page 109, the Complaint contains another header that reads, “: STATEMENT of the FACTS.” (d. at p. 109), What follows cannot
1V For the A. -D. -A.= For the AMERICANS-|DIS|JABILITIES(sic)-ACT of the [AC]JCOMMODATIONS(sic) 1S with the GOVERNMENTY[A JGENTS(sicV VASSALEES-of the [AC]ICOMMODATINGGic) with the HNICLUDING(sic)-LANGUAGE-BARRIERS/TRANSLA TORS, : V For the [AJPARTHEID(sic)}=For a SYSTEM of the [NJSTITUTIONALIZE(sic}-[DISICRIMINA TING(sic)- SEGREGATION ARE with the LAWS/POLICIES/RULES/[REJGULATIONS(sic) of the SEPARATING with the □ GROUP of the LIVING-MEN/WOMAN/CHILDREN with the FORCING-THEM within an HMIPOVERISH(sic)/[OPJPRESIVE(sic)-SYSTEM of the [AF]FECTING(sic)-ALL- [ASJPECT(sic) of their LIVES with the INJCLUDING: HOUSING/[EJDUCATION(sic/PUBLIC-FACILITIES/MEDICAL- FREJSOURCES/NUTRITIONAL-FOODS .” (ECF No, 1 at p. 24). 2 “Flag: U.S.-AMERICA-FLAG of the HAVING-A-YELLOW-TRIM-ON-THREE-SIDES AND A-SPERE-ON- TOP IS with the MARSHAL-LAW -AS-PER-TITLE-IV-U.S.C.- CHAPTER-- 1,-§-- 1-8--2,-8--3/EXECUTIVE- fOR]DER(sic)--10834-AUGUST- -21,--1959,--24-F.R.--6865-with the PRESIDENT-EISENHOWER of the unity- states with the [DE]VIATION(sic) of the [REJGULAR(sic)-FLAG with the [E]XECUTIVE(sic)-[OR]DER(sic) as the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF with a MILITARY-FLAG. --For this YELLOW-FRINGE-FLAG-WITH-A- SPEAR-TOP of the COURTROOCMS- [BE]RIND(sic)-A-FUDGE IS with the BEING-A-MILITARY- COURTROOM/ACOURTROOM of the TRYING-CASES with the MILITARY-LAW of the USING- NOCONSITUTIONAL-LA W/NO-COMMON-LAW/NO-CIVIL-LAW AND NO-STATUTORY-LAW as per ARMY-REGULATIONS: AR--849-10/0CTOBER-~1.,-~1979 with the fAL]SO(sic)-AS-PER: THE-MANUAL-of- the-COURTS-MARTIAL/-U,.S./-1994- ED./at the ART.--99/-c- 1-b/pg.-I'V--34/PIN-~030567-0000.” (ECF No, | at p. 96).
be construed in a manner that permits the Court to ascertain what claims are alleged, nor can the Court construe the facts, to the extent the Court can discern any facts at all, that support those claims either generally or against any defendant specifically. For example, the second fact states: “2 For this CLAIMANT/PETITIONER of this MUNICIPAL-COURT-MATTER IS with a BEING-A-NON-CITIZEN of the Uniti-states-of-this-AMERICA WITH THE BASE-UPON-MY- RELIGIOUS-BELIEFS/NATIONAL-[OJRIGIN(sicVRACE of the PARTICULARLY with the [AJPPARENT{sic)-[E]JROSION(sic) of the [OJRGANIC(sic)-CONSTITUTION AND LAWS with the NON-TITLE-IV-FOUR-COLOR-FLAG with EITHER-A-SPEAR [MEANING- MARSHAL-LAW] OR VATICAN/POSTAL [MEANING-BANKING] — TOP of the [DIS]PLAYING(sic) within the MANY-GOVERNMENT-NOW CORPORATIONS- [EN]TITIES.” Ud.) There are twenty-three (23) “facts” in this section, none of them are any more coherent than that. (See fd. at pp. 109-11). Plaintiff's Complaint "is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Ruther, 556 □□ App’x at 92. Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8 and must be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY on this oA hey of May 2026, ORDERED A. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE B. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to amend his pleadings in light of the deficiencies described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will Order the Clerk ef Court to close the case C. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
KAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dorkas Iris Delgaod-Shaten v. Corey E. Aheart, et al. (Dorkas Iris Delgaod-Shaten v. Corey E. Aheart, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.