Summary
This Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants a motion to dismiss filed by six named defendants. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s pro se complaint failed to state a plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) due to vague, generalized allegations that did not specify how each defendant caused harm or violated legal rights. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint specifically addressing the remaining defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief against the six served defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Whether the generalized and rambling allegations satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's requirement of a short and plain statement giving fair notice of the claims and each defendant's alleged conduct.
- Whether Bufano should be granted leave to amend after dismissal of the complaint.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief against the six served defendants because it did not allege what each defendant did, when the conduct occurred, how it harmed Bufano, or what specific legal right was violated.
- The complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 because its generalized, rambling, and incomprehensible allegations failed to provide a short, plain, and intelligible statement of the claims.
- Bufano was granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days, but only as to the six served defendants and only if the amended complaint complies with Rules 8 and 12(b)(6).
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.””
“A complaint “must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant[s] violated.””
“It is unreasonable to expect the Court or the defendants continually to have to adapt as the Plaintiff develops new theories or locates new defendants.”
Factual background
Bufano's complaint named numerous individual defendants and asserted 28 generalized allegations labeled as torts, including defamation, evidence-related misconduct, IPRA violations, property damage, negligence, trespass, harassment, and civil-rights violations. The complaint did not identify whether the claims arose under state or federal law and generally referred to the defendants collectively. Of the six served defendants, five were not mentioned in the body of the complaint, and the remaining defendant was mentioned only in a vague allegation of abuse of power or discretion.
Procedural history
Bufano filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, on November 8, 2024. Six named defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on December 20, 2024, and moved to dismiss. The court had separately dismissed the unserved defendants without prejudice for failure to serve them under Rule 4(m), and in this order dismissed the claims against the six served defendants while allowing amendment only as to those defendants.