Kolom v. Comm'r

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's complaint after he was given two opportunities to conform it to Rule 8 but failed to do so
• providing that the usual remedy for a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) is dismissal without prejudice, with a grant of leave to amend
• explaining that, if a complaint violates Rule 8, one option is for a district court to “dismiss without prejudice with leave to amend”
• explaining that federal notice pleading requires, at a minimum, that a complaint advise each defendant of what he allegedly did or did not do that forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim against him
• finding that “Rule 8 proscribes [] obfuscation of the plaintiff’s claims,” and that “[t]he district court and defendants should not have to ‘fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud’ to identify the allegations really at issue”
• upholding dismissal for violation of Rule 8 where the court and defendants would experience “undue difficulty in determining the claims and allegations actually at issue in this litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).