Lopes v. DeLeon

N.D. California

Lopes v. DeLeon

DecidedMay 14, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-07758

StatusUnknown

This text of Lopes v. DeLeon (Lopes v. DeLeon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lopes v. DeLeon, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CORNELIUS LOPES, Case No. 20-cv-07758-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS

11 KEVIN DELEON, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Pro se Plaintiff Cornelius Lopes, who is suing numerous Defendants, filed a 455-page 14 amended complaint on March 25, 2021. On April 21, 2021, Defendant Acting Attorney General 15 of California Matthew Rodriguez moved to dismiss the amended complaint. See Mot. to Dismiss 16 (dkt. 11). Rodriguez argues that the amended complaint consists of “verbose and unintelligible 17 statements, which prevent the [Defendant] from deciphering the factual and legal basis for any 18 claim asserted against each Defendant.” Id. at 5. Rodriguez thus moved to dismiss the amended 19 complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 20 (d); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)). 21 As reflected on the docket entry for the motion to dismiss, Lopes’s opposition was due on May 5, 22 2021. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-3(a). To date, Lopes has not filed an opposition. 23 The Court grants Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss. The amended complaint is “confusing, 24 distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible” and thus violates Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1059 (quotation omitted). District courts “are busy enough 26 without having to penetrate a tome approaching the magnitude of War and Peace to discern a 27 plaintiff’s claims and allegations.” Id. And because Lopes has failed to timely file an opposition 1 exists. 2 Lopes may move for leave to amend his complaint. But although the Court generally 3 || “should freely grant leave to amend,” id. at 1058, the Court will deny leave to amend if the 4 || proposed second amended complaint is once again extraordinarily prolix, such that “[o]nly 5 || through superhuman patience, effort, and insight, could any attorney review the allegations 6 || ...and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses.” Id. at 1059 (quotation omitted). 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. oe 8 Dated: May 14, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CORNELIUS LOPES, Case No. 20-cv-07758-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS

11 KEVIN DELEON, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Pro se Plaintiff Cornelius Lopes, who is suing numerous Defendants, filed a 455-page 14 amended complaint on March 25, 2021. On April 21, 2021, Defendant Acting Attorney General 15 of California Matthew Rodriguez moved to dismiss the amended complaint. See Mot. to Dismiss 16 (dkt. 11). Rodriguez argues that the amended complaint consists of “verbose and unintelligible 17 statements, which prevent the [Defendant] from deciphering the factual and legal basis for any 18 claim asserted against each Defendant.” Id. at 5. Rodriguez thus moved to dismiss the amended 19 complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 20 (d); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)). 21 As reflected on the docket entry for the motion to dismiss, Lopes’s opposition was due on May 5, 22 2021. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-3(a). To date, Lopes has not filed an opposition. 23 The Court grants Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss. The amended complaint is “confusing, 24 distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible” and thus violates Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1059 (quotation omitted). District courts “are busy enough 26 without having to penetrate a tome approaching the magnitude of War and Peace to discern a 27 plaintiff’s claims and allegations.” Id. And because Lopes has failed to timely file an opposition 1 exists. 2 Lopes may move for leave to amend his complaint. But although the Court generally 3 || “should freely grant leave to amend,” id. at 1058, the Court will deny leave to amend if the 4 || proposed second amended complaint is once again extraordinarily prolix, such that “[o]nly 5 || through superhuman patience, effort, and insight, could any attorney review the allegations 6 || ...and make paragraph-by-paragraph responses.” Id. at 1059 (quotation omitted). 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. oe 8 Dated: May 14, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lopes v. DeLeon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopes-v-deleon-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack