Monday, August 11, 2008

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

Per Tassio v. Mullarkey, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 3166149 (D. Colo. Aug. 05, 2008):

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. . . .


At 10:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The quoted language is not from the court's order of 8/5, but from the magistrate judge's recommendation that was filed on 7/10.

I don't know what was published by Westlaw, but Lexis published only the DC opinion and not the MJ recommendation.

At 2:37 PM, Blogger Michael said...

This article is useless because it is incomplete. I don't have a sub to Westlaw and cannot therefore, finish what you started.


Post a Comment

<< Home