DLD-135 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-3328
___________
EL AEMER EL MUJADDID, Appellant
v.
ANDREW BREWER; JOSH ROWBOTTOM; BRIAN FERGUSON; GREGG PERR; SUSAN GRAUBART; COREY AHART; MARION KARP; DENNIS P. MCINERNEY; WESTAMPTON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-14021) District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler ____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 5, 2020 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 9, 2020) ___________
OPINION* __________ PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. After receiving a traffic citation, Appellant El Aemer El Mujaddid filed suit in
New Jersey Superior Court against the Westampton Township committee and several
Westampton Township officers, administrators, and judges. The defendants removed the
285-paragraph complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. After the District Court denied El Mujaddid’s motion to remand the complaint to
state court, El Mujaddid filed motions for appointment of counsel which were denied by
the Magistrate Judge. He also filed a motion to amend his complaint. After the
defendants moved to dismiss the initial removed complaint, El Mujaddid asked to
withdraw the motion to amend and moved to file another amended complaint. The
District Court dismissed the initial removed complaint as it did not comport with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), an issue the Court raised sua sponte.1 According to the
District Court, the complaint did not contain a “short and plain statement of the claim,”
but instead alleged “legal conclusions, devoid of requisite factual support.” El Mujaddid
v. Brewer, No. 18-14021 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2019). The Court provided El Mujaddid 14
days to file a motion to amend the complaint consistent with Rule 8.
El Mujaddid filed a timely motion to amend the complaint with a proposed
amended complaint. The proposed amendment repeated the same allegations that were
made in the original complaint. Although the amended complaint, like the original
complaint, is difficult to follow, El Mujaddid seems to have alleged that he was involved
1 The Order also dismissed as moot El Mujaddid’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and motion for sanctions, as well as the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2 in an automobile accident with a third party not named in this suit. The named officers
filled out a police report detailing the situation, which El Mujaddid claimed was
inaccurate. Later, El Mujaddid received a traffic citation for careless driving based on the
accident. Without any justifying details, El Mujaddid stated that the officers
discriminated against him because of his ethnicity and falsified the reports. He further
claimed that the officers did not have probable cause to issue the traffic citation, that they
did not properly serve the citation, and that he was forced to appear before a municipal
court based on allegedly false charges. El Mujaddid purported to make claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the First, Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act,
and the Constitution of New Jersey.
The District Court, noting that the proposed amended complaint did not cure the
deficiencies addressed in the previous order, denied the motion to amend. El Mujaddid
timely appealed. In this Court, he filed a motion for leave to file an overlength motion
for summary action, a related motion for summary action, a motion for appointment of
counsel, a motion for an injunction pending appeal, and two motions to consolidate.2 For
the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
2 In his first motion to consolidate, El Mujaddid sought to consolidate this appeal with two other appeals from cases arising from the same traffic citation but with different claims against different defendants. The Clerk granted the first motion in part and denied it in part, consolidating the other two appeals, but leaving this appeal to proceed separately. In the motion before us (for which El Mujaddid has submitted a “corrected version”), El Mujaddid seeks to consolidate this appeal with three other appeals, including the two already-consolidated appeals from the previous motion.
3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe El Mujaddid’s pro se
allegations liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). We
may summarily affirm on any basis supported by the record if the appeal fails to present a
substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. We review both the District Court’s
dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 and the denial of a motion to amend the complaint
for abuse of discretion. See In re: Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir.
1996); Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 647 (3d Cir. 1989).
Rule 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). Each averment
must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). “Taken together,” Rules 8(a) and
8(d)(1) “underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading
rules.” In re: Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d at 702 (citation omitted). A district court
may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 when the complaint
is “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if
any, is well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations
omitted).
We agree with the District Court that El Mujaddid’s original complaint was
anything but “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). It was so excessively
voluminous and unfocused as to be unintelligible. In addition, despite the length of the
complaint and proposed amendment, El Mujaddid did not plead any facts showing that he
4 was entitled to relief. See id. at 8(a)(2). Though he expressed displeasure at the alleged
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DLD-135 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 19-3328
___________
EL AEMER EL MUJADDID, Appellant
v.
ANDREW BREWER; JOSH ROWBOTTOM; BRIAN FERGUSON; GREGG PERR; SUSAN GRAUBART; COREY AHART; MARION KARP; DENNIS P. MCINERNEY; WESTAMPTON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-14021) District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler ____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 5, 2020 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 9, 2020) ___________
OPINION* __________ PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. After receiving a traffic citation, Appellant El Aemer El Mujaddid filed suit in
New Jersey Superior Court against the Westampton Township committee and several
Westampton Township officers, administrators, and judges. The defendants removed the
285-paragraph complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. After the District Court denied El Mujaddid’s motion to remand the complaint to
state court, El Mujaddid filed motions for appointment of counsel which were denied by
the Magistrate Judge. He also filed a motion to amend his complaint. After the
defendants moved to dismiss the initial removed complaint, El Mujaddid asked to
withdraw the motion to amend and moved to file another amended complaint. The
District Court dismissed the initial removed complaint as it did not comport with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), an issue the Court raised sua sponte.1 According to the
District Court, the complaint did not contain a “short and plain statement of the claim,”
but instead alleged “legal conclusions, devoid of requisite factual support.” El Mujaddid
v. Brewer, No. 18-14021 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2019). The Court provided El Mujaddid 14
days to file a motion to amend the complaint consistent with Rule 8.
El Mujaddid filed a timely motion to amend the complaint with a proposed
amended complaint. The proposed amendment repeated the same allegations that were
made in the original complaint. Although the amended complaint, like the original
complaint, is difficult to follow, El Mujaddid seems to have alleged that he was involved
1 The Order also dismissed as moot El Mujaddid’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and motion for sanctions, as well as the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 2 in an automobile accident with a third party not named in this suit. The named officers
filled out a police report detailing the situation, which El Mujaddid claimed was
inaccurate. Later, El Mujaddid received a traffic citation for careless driving based on the
accident. Without any justifying details, El Mujaddid stated that the officers
discriminated against him because of his ethnicity and falsified the reports. He further
claimed that the officers did not have probable cause to issue the traffic citation, that they
did not properly serve the citation, and that he was forced to appear before a municipal
court based on allegedly false charges. El Mujaddid purported to make claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the First, Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act,
and the Constitution of New Jersey.
The District Court, noting that the proposed amended complaint did not cure the
deficiencies addressed in the previous order, denied the motion to amend. El Mujaddid
timely appealed. In this Court, he filed a motion for leave to file an overlength motion
for summary action, a related motion for summary action, a motion for appointment of
counsel, a motion for an injunction pending appeal, and two motions to consolidate.2 For
the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
2 In his first motion to consolidate, El Mujaddid sought to consolidate this appeal with two other appeals from cases arising from the same traffic citation but with different claims against different defendants. The Clerk granted the first motion in part and denied it in part, consolidating the other two appeals, but leaving this appeal to proceed separately. In the motion before us (for which El Mujaddid has submitted a “corrected version”), El Mujaddid seeks to consolidate this appeal with three other appeals, including the two already-consolidated appeals from the previous motion.
3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe El Mujaddid’s pro se
allegations liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). We
may summarily affirm on any basis supported by the record if the appeal fails to present a
substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. We review both the District Court’s
dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 and the denial of a motion to amend the complaint
for abuse of discretion. See In re: Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir.
1996); Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 647 (3d Cir. 1989).
Rule 8(a) requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). Each averment
must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). “Taken together,” Rules 8(a) and
8(d)(1) “underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading
rules.” In re: Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d at 702 (citation omitted). A district court
may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 when the complaint
is “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if
any, is well disguised.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations
omitted).
We agree with the District Court that El Mujaddid’s original complaint was
anything but “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). It was so excessively
voluminous and unfocused as to be unintelligible. In addition, despite the length of the
complaint and proposed amendment, El Mujaddid did not plead any facts showing that he
4 was entitled to relief. See id. at 8(a)(2). Though he expressed displeasure at the alleged
misinformation contained in the police report after his car accident and the traffic citation
he was issued, there does not seem to be any indication in the complaint of a viable state
or federal claim. We simply do not see any factual averments showing that the
Westampton officials were engaged in race- or nationality-based discrimination, nor do
we perceive any other constitutional violations based on the issuance of a traffic citation
for careless driving or El Mujaddid’s appearance before a municipal court. Though the
complaint is replete with legal-sounding verbiage, it contains mostly conclusory
statements with no factual bases.3 The District Court’s dismissal of the original
complaint was thus proper.
Moreover, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying El Mujaddid’s
motion to amend the complaint. The order denying the original complaint made clear
that El Mujaddid was required to plead a short and plain statement of the claim, more
than just legal conclusions and vague assertions. However, the proposed amended
complaint did not cure the deficiencies noted in the order. In fact, El Mujaddid sought in
his motion to amend to add three new defendants and another constitutional claim
regarding the alleged suspension of his driver’s license. The proposed amended
complaint was not significantly more “simple, concise, and direct” than the original
3 For example, as the District Court noted, El Mujaddid claimed that he was “legally subjected to conditions of slavery,” and that the defendants “conspired to frame him for careless driving in a conspiracy to deny him equal protection under the law because he is a Moor,” engaged in a “Jim Crow revenue scheme to gain a… $200.00 debt,” and “distorted the even-handed pursuit of justice,” all without factual support. 5 complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Over the course of the litigation, El Mujaddid
attempted to file three different amended complaints, none of which were drafted in
accordance with Rule 8. The District Court need not have entertained another complaint
containing only meandering and conclusory allegations.
Accordingly, because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will affirm
the judgment of the District Court.4 See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. El
Mujaddid’s motions for summary action,5 appointment of counsel, injunction pending
appeal, and consolidation are denied.
4 El Mujaddid also appeals the denial of his motions for appointment of counsel and motion for reconsideration. Because El Mujaddid did not appeal those orders, issued by a Magistrate Judge, to the District Court, he has waived his right to object to them. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO v. N.J. Zinc Co., 828 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1987). 5 El Mujaddid’s motion for leave to file an overlength motion for summary action is granted. 6