IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
May 22, 2009
DR. JOSEPH NICOLOSI, PLAINTIFF,
DONELLE DADIGAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court has just received the Judge's Copy of a Complaint and a two-inch thick stack of its accompanying exhibits,*fn1 brought by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ("Nicolosi") against a group of individuals and other defendants. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because that filing is in clear violation of the standards for federal pleading.
No doubt Nicolosi (and perhaps his four listed lawyers as well) feels highly aggrieved by the conduct that he ascribes to defendants. But any such sense of grievance does not excuse the Complaint's blatant violation of the mandate for brevity and simplicity prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a):
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Nicolosi's prolix nine-count, 226-paragraph Complaint flouts that Rule through its impermissible detailed pleading of evidence, a violation compounded by the inclusion of the bulky exhibits.*fn2
Accordingly both the Complaint and its exhibits are stricken from the file (although the current system of electronic filing spares the Clerk's Office the excessive use of filing space that would be involved if paper filing still prevailed, that unfortunately does not spare this Court, which receives the chambers copies of pleadings in paper form). This order is issued without prejudice to Nicolosi's filing of a suitable Amended Complaint on or before June 8, 2009, although in that respect his counsel must pay closer attention to the required jurisdictional allegations as to diversity than Complaint ¶¶6, 9 and 12 now reflect.