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

How later courts describe this case

  • 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

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
127 opinions
PREZZI v. SCHELTER,469 F.2d 691(2nd Cir. 1972)
WILMA PREZZI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BRIG. GEN. L. J. SCHELTER ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 65, Docket 72-1411.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued October 17, 1972.
Decided October 30, 1972.
Page 692
Wilma Prezzi, pro se.

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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before MANSFIELD, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] On December 2, 1971, Judge Cooper dismissed plaintiff's 88-page, legal size, single spacedpro secomplaint bearing the caption "Illegal dismissal, malicious libel, defamation of character, false government documents, created conspiracy," holding that since it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension it failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 8, F.R.Civ.P., that a complaint must set forth a short and plain statement of the basis upon which the court's jurisdiction depends and of a claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Leave was granted to file a new complaint in compliance with that rule.

[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