Filed: Feb. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPAND TIME OF SERVICE JUDITH GAIL DEIN, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff James M. Atkinson ("Atkinson") has filed a 474 page pro se complaint naming well over 100 defendants. On October 11, 2011, he filed a "Motion to Expand Time of Service for Good Cause Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(m)." (Docket No. 80). Pursuant to that motion, the plaintiff is seeking "an Order extending the time for service of the Complaint and Summons on Commonwealth Defend
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPAND TIME OF SERVICE JUDITH GAIL DEIN, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff James M. Atkinson ("Atkinson") has filed a 474 page pro se complaint naming well over 100 defendants. On October 11, 2011, he filed a "Motion to Expand Time of Service for Good Cause Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(m)." (Docket No. 80). Pursuant to that motion, the plaintiff is seeking "an Order extending the time for service of the Complaint and Summons on Commonwealth Defenda..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPAND TIME OF SERVICE
JUDITH GAIL DEIN, Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff James M. Atkinson ("Atkinson") has filed a 474 page pro se complaint naming well over 100 defendants. On October 11, 2011, he filed a "Motion to Expand Time of Service for Good Cause Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.4(m)." (Docket No. 80). Pursuant to that motion, the plaintiff is seeking "an Order extending the time for service of the Complaint and Summons on Commonwealth Defendants, Vincent Meoli, one federal agent, and upon the various Defendants currently known as John or Jane Does." Mot. ¶ 1. For the reasons detailed herein, this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the Motion to Expand Time for Service be DENIED.
To date, all of the served defendants, pursuant to one motion or another, have moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative document in this case.1 This court has recommended that all of the motions to dismiss be allowed. Those Reports and Recommendations are presently pending before the District Judge.
While each of the motions to dismiss differed to some extent, in all cases this court concluded that the Complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and, therefore, should be dismissed. As detailed in this court's Reports and Recommendations, "[w]hile a court may dismiss a pleading that does not comply with the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, the exercise of this power is generally reserved for a pleading that is `so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.'" Black v. UNUMProvident Corp., 245 F.Supp.2d 194, 197 (D. Me. 2003) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Third Amended Complaint is such a pleading.
In light of this court's recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed, it serves no purpose to extend the time for service so that other defendants can be served with a Complaint that fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Moreover, given the breadth of the existing Complaint, it seems that the plaintiff has had sufficient time to identify all possible defendants. Under such circumstances, this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the Plaintiff's Motion to Expand Time of Service (Docket No. 80) be DENIED.2
