BEAVERS v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., 1:17-cv-647-LJO-JLT. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170620836
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 3) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Defendant Schneider National, Inc. move to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Justin Terrell Beavers's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim because it is unintelligible. See Doc. 3. 1 The Court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint is an eight-page, single-spaced narrative
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 3) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Defendant Schneider National, Inc. move to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Justin Terrell Beavers's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim because it is unintelligible. See Doc. 3. 1 The Court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint is an eight-page, single-spaced narrative ..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 3)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Defendant Schneider National, Inc. move to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Justin Terrell Beavers's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim because it is unintelligible. See Doc. 3.1
The Court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint is an eight-page, single-spaced narrative and purports to bring twelve causes of action against Defendants. The Court cannot understand how the facts, as alleged, relate to Defendant or could support any cause of action.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant further contends the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. See Doc. 6. On June 14, 2017, a week after his opposition was due, Plaintiff filed a document titled Plaintiff's "contractual agreement list of settlment [sic] options in and for Defendant, non negotiable." Doc. 9. This appears to be a number of purported settlement offers from Plaintiff to Defendant, which the Court cannot consider. Further, the Court cannot construe the document as an opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is unopposed.
Source: Leagle
