Anthony J. Stonecipher, Claudene Stonecipher, and Vanessa Stonecipher v. City of Alamogordo, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico orders the pro se plaintiffs to file an amended complaint of no more than 75 pages that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules. The court strikes an overlength motion for summary judgment, attachments, and emergency motion for injunctive relief; partially grants a requested stay; denies a request to conduct all proceedings exclusively through written submissions; grants permission for electronic filing; and denies the motion for service of summonses. The order also explains limitations on a nonlawyer parent’s ability to represent a minor child and on asserting claims under criminal statutes.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because it was excessively long, lacked uniquely numbered paragraphs, and failed to clearly identify the factual allegations supporting each claim and defendant's alleged conduct.
2. A pro se, nonlawyer parent may not bring claims or file documents on behalf of a minor child in federal court.
3. Plaintiffs may not assert private civil claims for alleged violations of criminal statutes because criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action.
4. The court could strike the summary-judgment motion and attachments and the emergency motion for injunctive relief because they exceeded the page limits imposed by the District of New Mexico's local rules.
5. Plaintiffs were not entitled to an order prohibiting all live hearings or requiring every matter to be decided solely on written submissions under the ADA.
6. The magistrate judge denied the motion for service of summonses because the judge does not issue summonses; plaintiffs may present properly completed summonses to the Clerk for signature and seal and remain responsible for service under Rule 4.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 619-page complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and related pleading requirements.
2. Whether the court could require plaintiffs to file an amended complaint complying with page, formatting, and content requirements.
3. Whether the oversized summary-judgment motion, attachments, and emergency motion for injunctive relief should be struck under the local rules.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to the requested stays and disability-related accommodations, including a blanket prohibition on live proceedings and adjudication solely through written submissions.
5. Whether a pro se, nonlawyer parent could assert claims or file documents on behalf of a minor child.
6. Whether the court or magistrate judge should issue the summonses requested by plaintiffs.

Disposition

other