Miscellaneous

D. Colorado Notes Improper Prolixity of Pro Se Complaint but Addresses Substance Issues of Motion to Dismiss Instead

Mr. Tassio's complaint takes the term prolix to new heights. In spite of his efforts to provide an outline of his claims, it is redundant and tedious to the extreme and pleonastic to the point of being indecipherable. For instance, the Sixth Claim for Relief begins on page 32 and continues through page 64, going through Colorado's admission to the Union, congressional statements from 1861, the governor's early duties, and on and on ad nauseam for thirty-two pages, many of them containing large blocks of single spaced quotations. The complaint ?contains frivolous and groundless tax protester rhetoric that has been rejected repeatedly by this and every other court that has considered it.? Scheckel v. United States, 2005 WL 3434149, 2 (N.D.Iowa, 2005).

It would be utterly impossible for the state defendants to respond to such a tome. For this reason alone, the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. However, since there is a high risk that plaintiff will simply trim his complaint of ?some? superfluous verbage, this court chooses to address the other substantive issues presented in the state defendants Motion to Dismiss. . . .

Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on August 11, 2008 (boomark / email).