Byron Arnold and Kimbly Arnold v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed plaintiffs’ pro se complaint against the Department of Housing and Urban Development and related defendants for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The dismissal was without prejudice, and plaintiffs were granted thirty days to file an amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. A complaint that is unintelligible and does not give the court or defendants fair notice of the claims being asserted fails to comply with Rule 8 and may be dismissed.
2. A complaint subject to in forma pauperis screening may be dismissed when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
3. Dismissal of the unintelligible complaint was without prejudice and with leave to amend, subject to filing an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's requirement that it contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
2. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
3. Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed