Marie v. Gaylord Paper Manufacturer

108 F. App'x 213

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 22, 2004
• Docket: 04-30107
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The appellants challenge the dismissal without prejudice of their complaint, naming as defendants various chemical companies, railroad companies, private attorneys, public officials, and state and federal judges, for failure to comply with Fed. R.CrvP. 8(a). The appellants’ arguments are difficult to decipher but appear to be merely a continuation of the disjointed allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The district court was correct in concluding that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) in that it fails to provide sufficient notice of the circumstances giving rise to their claims or to set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of their claims. See Fed.R.CivP. 8(a)(2). Because it is impossible to discern from the complaint the exact basis of the appellants’ claims or the legal theories on which they seek redress against any or all of the named defendants, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. See General Star Indem. Co. v. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp., 173 F.3d 946, 950 (5th Cir.1999); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Because the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice, the appellants remain free to file another complaint in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.

The appellants’ motion for leave to supplement their record excerpts is DENIED. Gaylord Chemical Corporation and Gay-lord Container Corporation move to dismiss Gaylord Paper Manufacturer and its attorneys as a named defendant, and the appellants oppose the motion in their own motion to add a “DMSO” Defendant. These motions are similarly DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.