Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Landis v. Buncombe County Nc Government

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

March 27, 2015

LISA BAIN LANDIS, Plaintiff,
v.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY NC GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on "Defendant City of Asheville and Asheville Police Department's Motion to Dismiss..., " Doc. 41, filed on February 16, 2015, and "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 12(b)(6), " Doc. 42, filed on February 17, 2015, and the parties' associated briefs and exhibits. See Docs. 43 and 44.

These Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1), and are now ripe for the Court's consideration. Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted, as discussed below.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Lisa Bain Landis filed her initial Complaint in this action, Doc. 1. Plaintiff has since filed three Amended Complaints: the "Amended Complaint, " Doc. 5, on June 27, 2014, the "Re-Amended Complaint, " Doc. 6, on July 16, 2014 and the "Re-Re Amended Complaint, " Doc. 9, on September 5, 2014. Each of these amended Complaints was filed without leave of Court.

On December 3, 2014, the Court entered an Order, Doc. 33, ruling on the Defendants' First Motions to Dismiss and ordering Plaintiff to submit a particularized amended complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In that Order, the Court stated the following with respect to Plaintiff's Complaints:

Each Complaint contains rambling, confusing and often unintelligible statements. As the Plaintiff continues to amend her Complaint, additional parties were added and the allegations became increasingly disjointed and confusing. The Complaints include lengthy and often unnumbered paragraphs, incomplete sentences, and make no distinction between facts and legal claims. The majority of Plaintiff's "Counts" consist of string citations to various cases and statutes, with no underlying factual allegations.

Id. at 3.

The Court's Order specifically stated:

The Court directs Plaintiff to submit a particularized amended complaint that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The body of the complaint must set forth cogently, in separately numbered paragraphs, a short statement of the facts giving rise to her claims for relief. Thereafter, in separately captioned sections, Plaintiff must clearly identify each right violated. She should do so with the requisite specificity so as to give Defendants notice, plead the involvement of each Defendant, and clarify what rights have been violated. Under each section, Plaintiff must list each Defendant purportedly liable under that legal theory and explain why she believes each Defendant is liable. Such explanation should reference the numbered factual paragraphs in the body of the complaint that support that assertion. Plaintiff shall also include a prayer for relief.

Id. The Court also reminded Plaintiff of her obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, to provide a "short and plain statement" of her claims and a "simple, concise, and direct" pleading. Id. at 3-4. The Court explicitly stated:

The Court warns Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Court's Orders, including the Standing Order and Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan, the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in DISMISSAL OF HER CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE.

Id. at 4. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file her fourth amended complaint within thirty days of the Order, which would have been on or before January 5, 2015.

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to comply with the Court's December 3, 2014 Order. Doc. 35. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion and extended her time to file a particularized amended complaint up to and including January 30, 2015. Doc. 36. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Extension of Time. Doc. 38. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion on February 2, 2015. Doc. 39. On that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.