CAFC applies Rule 8 in Arunachalam case

Of interest


Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” and Rule 41(b) allows a district
court to dismiss a case for failure to follow the court’s order.
FED. R. CIV. P. 8, 41(b).

As the district court correctly found, Dr. Arunachalam’s “robust 144-page complaint is confusing, disorganized, and contains legal terminology without setting
forth facts showing that she is entitled to relief.” Arunachalam, 2018 WL 5023378, at *2. The Complaint describes alleged conspiracies that have been perpetrated by
numerous companies and members of the judiciary, the
legislature, the PTO, and the bar. Yet no facts are presented to support these allegations other than Dr. Arunachalam’s assertions that it is so. Under the
circumstances, the district court was justified in dismissing
the Complaint under Rule 8. See Cafasso, 637 F.3d at
1058–59; Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1130–31.

When the district court dismissed the Complaint for
failure to follow Rule 8, the district court specifically
warned Dr. Arunachalam that failure to follow the court’s
order would result in dismissal of the case. Id. at *6. But
rather than follow the district court’s instructions, Dr. Arunachalam used her amended complaint to levy additional
attacks against Judge Davila, who was not a named party
in the action.