Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JULIUS RAY ANGLERO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-437-CAB-GC 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 15 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW 17 YORK, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Julius Ray Anglero’s civil complaint against 21 nearly forty Defendants. [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”) at 7–14.] Because the Complaint fails 22 to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint 23 without prejudice. 24 Courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte for failure to comply with Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 8(a) (“Rule 8”). Prime Neurology, Inc. v. Alina Telehealth, No. 2:22-CV- 26 01738-MCS-AS, 2022 WL 2189638, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022). Rule 8(a)(2) requires 27 a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 28 1 is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 3 (cleaned up). While Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it demands 4 more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A pleading that 6 offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 7 will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of 8 ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 at 678 (citation omitted) (quoting Twombly, 9 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Moreover, a complaint that is too verbose, long, confusing, 10 redundant, irrelevant, or conclusory may be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. 11 See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 12 2011) (citing cases upholding dismissals for these reasons). 13 Here, despite being over 100 pages, the Complaint and associated attachments are 14 largely unintelligible and lack even the basic details required for the Court to determine 15 what claims Plaintiff alleges, against whom, and for what events. For example, Plaintiff’s 16 “Statement of Facts” vaguely but repeatedly alleges that the attached exhibits “will show 17 the following several laws acts, and procedures w[]ere ignored, broken, or disregarded” 18 but no exhibit provides these details. [See, e.g., Doc. No. 1-2 at 13.] Plaintiff also alleges 19 that laws ranging from the Dodd-Frank Act to the Americans with Disability Act have been 20 broken. [Id. at 15.] Plainly, the Court cannot decipher what Plaintiff alleges happened, 21 which laws were broken, and by whom, or determine whether the Court has jurisdiction 22 over any alleged claims. 23 The Court therefore DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and 24 grants leave for Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint by September 30, 2026. Any 25 First Amended Complaint must be complete in and of itself and may be subject to sua 26 sponte screening by the Court for compliance with Rule 8, including an adequate statement 27 of the claim and the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction. If a First Amended Complaint is 28 1 || not filed by September 30, 2026, the Clerk of the Court shall close the case without further 2 || order of the Court. 3 Finally, the Court notes that the Complaint repeatedly references a habeas petition 4 || filed with the Southern District of California, which was dismissed because Plaintiff failed 5 ||to pay the filing fee and because there was no evidence that Plaintiff was in custody. See 6 || Anglero v. Government Authorities of U.S.A., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-3807-AJB-JSC. 7 || Plaintiff should make any requests for relief relevant to that case via a motion filed in that 8 || case, not this one. 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: September 3, 2026 © 1] Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28