Mathews v. Kilroe

170 F. Supp. 416, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3729
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 170 F. Supp. 416 (Mathews v. Kilroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mathews v. Kilroe, 170 F. Supp. 416, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3729 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Opinion

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint in the above action on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted. The complaint apparently was drawn by the plaintiff, who is appearing pro se. It is a strange, rambling document. It names two individuals and two corporations as defendants. The complaint does not, however, indicate which of the defendants is alleged to have performed the acts described in the complaint, nor does it show the relationship between the defendants and the acts complained of. On argument of the motion the plaintiff, who appeared in person, was asked whether he was suing both individuals as well as the corporations. He stated that he was not suing the individuals but was seeking relief only against the corporations. Nevertheless the individuals are named in the complaint as defendants.

It is impossible to know from the complaint exáctly what wrong is alleged to which defendant, or whether the wrongs are alleged to the defendants jointly, and if so, on what basis.

The Court is acquainted with the decision in Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 744, and recognizes that very little is required in a complaint. However, the complaint should, as a minimum, indicate clearly the defendants against whom relief is sought and the basis upon which -the relief is sought against the particular defendants. To do less than this is to cause an injustice to persons who are named as defendants in an action. For example, in the present action the motion to dismiss is made in part by the two individuals named in the complaint, against whom the plaintiff says he is seeking no relief. Nevertheless they were served and have been put to the trouble of appearing in the action and bringing this motion.

The plaintiff, if he has a cause of action, should be able to get a lawyer (either the Legal Aid Society or an attorney suggested by the Bar or the Association of the Bar) to put his complaint in proper form. .

The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, with leave to plaintiff to file an amended complaint in proper form at any time within sixty (60) days of the date of this order.

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

Related

Gollnick v. More
E.D. Michigan, 2022
Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia
984 F. Supp. 209 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Browne v. N.Y.S. Court System
599 F. Supp. 36 (E.D. New York, 1984)
In Re Castillo
7 B.R. 135 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Klein v. Turk (In Re Turk)
1 B.R. 771 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Altman v. Central of Georgia Railway Company
254 F. Supp. 167 (District of Columbia, 1965)
Rhodes v. Houston
202 F. Supp. 624 (D. Nebraska, 1962)
Mathews v. New York Racing Association, Inc.
193 F. Supp. 293 (S.D. New York, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 F. Supp. 416, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-kilroe-nysd-1959.