Prezzi v. Schelter
| Decision Date | 30 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 65,Docket 72-1411.,65 |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 691 |
| Parties | Wilma PREZZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brig. Gen. L. J. SCHELTER et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
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.
Before MANSFIELD, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
:
On December 2, 1971, Judge Cooper dismissed plaintiff's 88-page, legal size, single spaced pro se complaint 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.
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.
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, including 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (), which, when construed favorably toward this pro se pleader, 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallio v. Hebert
...lack of legal training ... should not be impaired by harsh application of technical rules.") citation omitted. 28 See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (extra liberal pleading "standard set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 1972, did not......
-
Marshall v. National Association of Letter Carriers BR36, 03 Civ. 1361 (LTS) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. 11/7/2003)
...granted; otherwise, litigation could continue indefinitely without ever emerging from the pleading stage") (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 935, 93 S. Ct. 1911 (1973)), aff'd, No. 97-7284, 141 F.3d 1151 (table), 1998 WL 74843 (2d Cir. Feb.......
-
Vega v. Artus
...Defendant # 1, 537 F.3d 185 190-91 (2d Cir.2008); see also Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.1983). 9. See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (extra liberal pleading standard set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 [1972], did not sa......
-
Jones v. Nat. Commun. and Surveillance Networks
... ... Nevertheless, dismissal of a pro se litigant's complaint may still be appropriate under Rule 8(a)(2). See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d ... Page 465 ... Cir.1972); Solomon v. H.P. Action Center, H.P.D., 1999 WL 1051092, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.19, ... ...