OPINION & ORDER
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge.
The initial complaint in this action was filed on June 15, 2016. The operative, amended complaint was filed as of right on September 30, 2016. (ECF No. 8.) All defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint are GRANTED in their entirety. While the Court has carefully considered the sanctions motions brought by certain parties, the Court DENIES them at this time on the basis that it appears that the plaintiff be acting under some disability and may not appreciate the consequences of his actions.
I. THE COMPLAINT
The Amended Complaint is a lengthy and bizarre description of events that this Court finds difficulty to summarize or describe. Having reviewed the Amended Complaint and its attachments now a number of times, it is certainly clear that it fails to comply with the most basic pleading standards set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That is, while plaintiff provides names to each of his eight causes of action that are comprehensible (e.g., Fraud, Breach of Contract, Libel, New York Civil Rights Law, RICO), his allegations are simply incomprehensible to state any claim.
As best the Court can tell, the Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiff Wright is a 73 year old man who considers himself a business consultant. ((ECF No. 8, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") at 2.) Somewhat ironically, he asserts that crux of his claim concerns the misuse and theft of certain intellectual property he developed relating to alternative dispute resolution ("ADR Intellectual Property"). (
Wright alleges that defendant Plamen Kirilov Kovachev, who was employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, volunteered to assist Wright in some manner in connection with his ADR Intellectual Property. (
Wright alleges that wanted Gerstein and Kovachev to work as mediators; somehow defendant Gemme, referenced as a "wealthy eldercare operator." (
According to Wright, for some reason he sought to have ADR job applicants to be "vetted" by Gemme. (
Based on these core assertions, Wright then alleges various causes of action.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Standard of Review
Despite the well-established rule in this Circuit that pro se complaints are to be examined with "special solicitude," liberally construed and interpreted to raise "the strongest arguments they suggest,"
At the motion to dismiss stage, a court may consider "any written instrument attached to [the complaint] as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference."
All complaints, including those filed by a pro se plaintiff, must comply with the basic principles of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 provides that every complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." These "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]"
This Court has read and re-read the Amended Complaint and simply cannot make head or tail of it. The Court's review of the pleading suggests that plaintiff is operating under some form of disability.
The essential lack of clarity in the Amended Complaint renders it infirm under Rule 8. None of his claims make sense, and he has failed to set forth essential elements of each.
The Court has compared the allegations of the Amended Complaint against the elements for each of the claims asserted and finds that each of his claims fail. The allegations are insufficient to plausibly suggest a basis for relief.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the case in its entirety. As plaintiff has already replead his claims once, and has not requested an opportunity to replead his claim, the dismissal is with prejudice.
The Court has also considered the motions for sanctions. Because the Court is persuaded that plaintiff may well be operating under some form of disability, it declines to impose sanctions. The motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the motions for sanctions are DENIED. All pending motions are terminated; this action is terminated.
Furthermore, the Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore