Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1972-10-30
- Topic
- litigation
holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “ it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “ it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “ it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension” | holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it
Citator
- Cited by
- 59 opinions
Frank H. Wohl, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U.S. Atty., S. D. of New York, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Schelter, Lukey, Heller, Goldberg, DiStefano, Cincotta, Milanese, Hunt, Castiglioni, Cohen, Kowalick, Coburn, Fisher, Phipps, Carroll, Marcotullio, Drummond and Shields.
H. Richard Penn, New York City (Bachner, Tally Mantell, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Salamone and Acampora.
Charles F. Schirmeister, New York City (Reid Priest, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Hazeltine Corp.
[2] Shortly thereafter appellant filed another complaint which, while somewhat shorter than the first, was equally prolix and for the most part incomprehensible. On April 11, 1972, Judge Cooper granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this time without leave to amend. We affirm.
[3] Having in mind that the court's jurisdiction must first be determined, Arrowsmith v. United Press International,320 F.2d 219(2d Cir. 1963) (en banc), we note that the complaint does assert various jurisdictional bases, including28 U.S.C. § 1331(federal question) and28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (federal civil rights action), which, when construed favorably toward thispro sepleader, see Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), are probably sufficient to pass jurisdictional muster at this stage. However, applying the same liberal standard, we find that the complaint fails, for the reasons stated by Judge Cooper, to state facts amounting to a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly the judgment of the district court is affirmed.Page 696