dismissing with prejudice “a meandering sixty-eight page narrative” for failure to comply with Rule 8
How later courts described this case
- dismissing with prejudice “a meandering sixty-eight page narrative” for failure to comply with Rule 8
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 5:24-CV-00117-M
DARRELL HUBBARD, )
Plaintiff,
Vv. ORDER
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
ee)
This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (the
“Recommendation”) entered by Magistrate Judge Robert B Jones, Jr. in this case on April 15, 2024
[DE 8]. In the Recommendation, Judge Jones recommends that Plaintiffs application to proceed
in forma pauperis be allowed, that the Complaint be dismissed, and that the motions for case
conference, injunctive relief, and to expedite be denied as moot. DE 8 at 1, 9-10. Plaintiff timely
objected to the Recommendation. DE 9.
A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . .. recommendation[ ]. . . receive further evidence
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
is made.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear
error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
This case concerns state criminal charges brought against Plaintiff in New Jersey in 1996,
and his efforts to expunge those charges (while residing in North Carolina) in 2023. See generally
DE | at 2, 5-6, 11-13. The Recommendation observes “that venue is [not] proper in this district”
because “Defendants are not alleged to reside in North Carolina and none of the events giving rise
to the claims are alleged to have occurred in North Carolina.” DE 8 at 6. Rather than transferring
the case to the District of New Jersey, though, Judge Jones recommends dismissal of the Complaint
because Plaintiff's “[Section] 1983 claims are time-barred.” Jd. at 6.
In his objection, Plaintiff raises several factual disputes to the Recommendation. See DE
9 at 2 (asserting that he never pleaded guilty to kingpin narcotics charges), 3 (averring that those
charges were “fabricated” and placed on his record). But other than noting that he discovered of
the alleged constitutional violations while living in North Carolina, Plaintiff does not dispute that
this court is the wrong forum, and he is willing to “concede on the issue of venue.” Jd. at 5.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that he has “drafted a completely new complaint” that corrects the
deficiencies identified in the Recommendation. /d at 2. Plaintiff attaches an “Amended
Complaint” as an exhibit, which spans 122 pages (more than double the length of his original
Complaint). See DE 9-1 at 1-123.
The court has reviewed that exhibit and finds that it does not rebut the Recommendation’s
finding that venue is not proper in this district. In fact, the exhibit states that “[v]enue is proper in
the United States District Count for the District of New Jersey,” and that Plaintiff is now “an
individual residing in Union County, New Jersey.” DE 9-1 at 3, 6. The court further finds that,
even if venue were proper here, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint would be subject to summary
dismissal because it fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim”) (emphasis
added); Plumhoff v. Cent. Mortg. Co., 286 F. Supp. 3d 699, 703 (D. Md. 2017) (dismissing with
prejudice “a meandering sixty-eight page narrative” for failure to comply with Rule 8); Davis v.
Shekita, No. 5:12-CV-504-H, 2014 WL 2505485, at *4 (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2014) (as part of review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissing complaint that did not comply with Rule 8).
Rather than treat Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as the operative pleading and dismiss it
with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8,' the court will exercise its discretion to dismiss
(without prejudice) Plaintiff's original Complaint based on grounds of improper venue. Although
Plaintiff may pursue his claims in the District of New Jersey, the court cautions him that “courts
have unhesitatingly dismissed actions” for failure to comply with Rule 8’s short and plain
statement rule. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977). “[E]ven pro se litigants
[must] state their claims in a[n] understandable and efficient manner.” Stone v. Warfield, 184
F.R.D. 553, 555 (D. Md. 1999).
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is GRANTED. The
Recommendation [DE 8] is ADOPTED, and the Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Further, Plaintiff's motions for case conference [DE 5], to expedite [DE 6] for
injunctive relief [DE 7], for recusal of the magistrate [DE 13], and for a case conference [DE 14]
are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED this | th _ day of July, 2024.
ad Joe
RICUARD MYERS Ti
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
' At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff is authorized to amend his Complaint as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1). But Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint as an exhibit to his objections to the Recommendation, and
it’s not clear that he would like the court to treat that exhibit as the operative pleading. See DE 9 at 7.