Summary
The court orders pro se plaintiffs Chauncy Richard and Maurice Groulx to file a second amended complaint addressing pleading deficiencies, jurisdiction, standing, legal claims, and Rule 11 signature requirements. The order characterizes the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading containing sovereign-citizen theories and directs that defendants not respond until further order. It also denies the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply and suspends further briefing on pending motions and the merits of the prior pleadings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could require Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint because the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and relied on patently frivolous sovereign-citizen theories.
- Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiffs' standing.
- Whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to file a sur-reply.
- What pleading, signature, and claim-particularity requirements Plaintiffs must satisfy in a second amended complaint.
Holdings
- The court may sua sponte require a plaintiff to replead a shotgun complaint and may dismiss it if the plaintiff fails to cure the pleading defects after an opportunity to amend.
- Sovereign-citizen-type legal theories are patently frivolous and cannot provide a legally cognizable basis for Plaintiffs' claims.
- A complaint must allege facts sufficient to establish each plaintiff's standing and the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
- The second amended complaint must identify the defendants and legal claims, allege facts supporting jurisdiction and injury to each plaintiff, provide a short and plain statement of each claim, avoid incorporation by reference, include both Plaintiffs' signatures, and separately number each count.
- Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply was denied, and the court would not consider the sur-reply filed without leave.
Key quotations
“Plaintiffs’ seventy-four page amended complaint is “a perfect example of ‘shotgun’ pleading, in that it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.”” (at 1)
“To support standing, the allegations of the complaint must show each Plaintiff “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”” (at 2)
“The legal basis for Plaintiffs’ claims shall be grounded in law, not sovereign citizen theories.” (at 8)
“The second amended complaint shall be a short, plain statement of Plaintiffs’ claims. It shall not serve as a legal brief.” (at 9)
Factual background
Plaintiffs Chauncy Richard and Maurice Groulx proceeded pro se and filed a seventy-four-page amended complaint against Embrace Home Loans, Inc., and other defendants. The court concluded that the amended complaint made it virtually impossible to determine which factual allegations supported which claims and that its jurisdictional and substantive theories were associated with sovereign-citizen arguments. The complaint also did not clearly establish Chauncy Richard's standing.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and having paid the filing fee, filed an original complaint and an amended complaint. The court found the seventy-four-page amended complaint to be a shotgun pleading, containing unclear jurisdictional, factual, and legal allegations and sovereign-citizen theories. The court allowed one further opportunity to amend, ordered Plaintiffs to file a compliant second amended complaint by March 20, 2026, stayed responses and briefing, and denied the motion for leave to file a sur-reply.