## Facts

- Jurijus Kadamovas, a federal prisoner at FCI Terre Haute, filed a pro se Bivens action against prison staff alleging constitutional violations.
- He alleged staff retaliated against him for hunger strikes by using excessive force to force-feed him and draw blood, placing him in a feces-infested cell, denying recreation, denying access to a Bible, blocking grievance filing, and attempting to obstruct access to federal courts.
- The pleading consisted of a 28-page complaint plus a 71-page appendix.
- The district court dismissed the action before any defendant appeared, characterizing it as a “99-page complaint” that was unintelligible under Rule 8(a)(2), and granted leave to amend.
- When Kadamovas did not file an amended complaint, the district court dismissed with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) was proper on the ground that the complaint was excessively long and unintelligible.
2. Whether a complaint alleging multiple distinct prisoner-conditions claims may be dismissed at screening as unintelligible when its core factual allegations are coherent and plausibly pleaded.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred in treating the pleading as unintelligible and excessively long.
- The complaint’s length was not unreasonable given the number of distinct claims, and the district court could have struck or ignored the appendix rather than dismissing the case.
- Dismissal with prejudice at that stage was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(a)(2)’s requirement of a “short and plain statement” is contextual; “short” is relative to the number and character of claims and the detail needed to plead plausibility under Twombly and Iqbal.
- Length and unintelligibility are separate concepts; a complaint may be lengthy yet intelligible, and dismissal is warranted only when verbosity obscures the material allegations or imposes an undue burden.
- Courts should treat factual allegations as true at the pleading stage unless they are merely legal conclusions or are “fantastic” to the point of obvious implausibility.
- When surplus material (such as an appendix) is the problem, case-management tools (striking, ignoring surplusage) are preferred to terminating dismissal, especially where the pleading provides fair notice of distinct claims.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Kadamovas’s complaint, though not brief, coherently alleged multiple plausible constitutional claims and therefore could not be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 8(a)(2) as unintelligible; the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2013)