## Facts

- Through their attorney, Samuel A. Malat, Angel Mendez and other plaintiffs sued Correctional Officer Draham and 29 state and federal officials (in individual and official capacities), along with multiple state and federal institutional entities.
- Plaintiffs sought relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985–86, and 1988, alleging many constitutional violations plus state-law and common-law claims.
- The complaint was 392 pages long, contained 1,020 numbered paragraphs, and had no index or table of contents.
- The pleading repeatedly recycled the same allegations for each plaintiff, claim, and group of defendants, creating heavy redundancy and making it difficult to determine what was alleged against which defendant.
- Counsel for the state defendants notified Malat that the complaint appeared to violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)’s “short and plain statement” requirement and warned that many claims looked legally baseless—especially § 1983 claims asserted against federal defendants, state entities, and state officers sued in their official capacities.
- The state defendants gave Malat additional time to correct the pleading defects and withdraw or revise the problem claims, but Malat did not make meaningful corrections.
- The state defendants moved to strike the complaint under Rule 8 and sought Rule 11 sanctions against Malat; the sanctions request was effectively unopposed.
- The court noted that in the prior 18 months Malat had twice been sanctioned under Rule 11 in other federal cases, including monetary penalties and court-ordered training and writing assignments concerning Rule 11.

## Issues

1. Whether the 392-page, 1,020-paragraph complaint satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)’s requirement of a “short and plain statement” sufficient to provide fair notice of the claims and permit a meaningful response.
2. Whether Malat violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by filing and maintaining a pleading containing legally baseless claims and by failing to correct defects after notice, warranting sanctions.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to strike the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).
- The court found the complaint’s extreme length, repetition, and lack of organization prevented it from functioning as notice pleading and made it unreasonable to expect defendants to answer.
- The court granted Rule 11 sanctions against attorney Samuel A. Malat.
- The court credited the warnings that many claims were legally defective, including § 1983 theories aimed at categories of defendants that are not proper § 1983 targets and claims barred by immunity doctrines.
- In setting sanctions, the court considered Malat’s recent history of Rule 11 violations and concluded stronger measures were needed to deter continued improper filings and to protect the court and opposing parties from needless burden.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, written clearly enough to give each defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it rests.
- A court may strike a complaint when its excessive length, redundancy, and disorganization render it confusing and effectively unanswerable.
- Rule 11 requires an attorney, after a reasonable inquiry, to certify that legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law and that factual contentions have evidentiary support (or likely will after discovery).
- Persisting in legally baseless theories after being informed of clear defects can support a Rule 11 violation and sanctions.
- Sanctions under Rule 11 are aimed at deterrence; a lawyer’s prior sanctions and continued conduct may justify more serious penalties to curb repeat violations.

## Conclusion

In *Mendez v. Draham*, the District of New Jersey struck a sprawling 392-page civil-rights complaint as inconsistent with Rule 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement and sanctioned plaintiffs’ counsel under Rule 11 where the pleading contained plainly defective legal theories and counsel failed to correct the problems after notice, especially in light of counsel’s recent record of Rule 11 sanctions in other cases.


Mendez v. Draham, 182 F. Supp. 2d 430 (2002)