United States District Court, D. Hawaii
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DENY THE PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT 
RICHARD L. PUGLISI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint on July 18, 2017. ECF
No. 1. On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request that the
court issue him a letter of credit in the amount of 15
million dollars. ECF No. 8. On August 9, 2017, Defendant
Olympic Moving & Storage, Inc. filed a Motion for a More
Definite Statement. ECF No. 11. On August 16, 2017, Defendant
Disabled American Veterans filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No.
14. After careful consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint
and the record in this action, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS
that the district court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint
with leave to amend and DENY the pending motions as
court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hearns v.
San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131
(9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8 requires that a complaint include
“a short plain statement of the claim” and that
each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A complaint that is so
confusing that its “‘true substance, if any, is
well disguised'” may be dismissed sua
sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns,
530 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Gillibeau v. City of
Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)). A
plaintiff must allege “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint
may be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 if the
complaint fails to provide the defendants with fair notice of
the wrongs that they have allegedly committed. See
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996)
(affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot
determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what
relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide
discovery”). Because Plaintiff is appearing pro se in
this action, the Court liberally construes the pleadings.
See Bernhardt v. L.A. Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and concludes
that, even liberally construed, the Complaint fails to state
any discernable basis for judicial relief. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff states that he is asserting a claim for violation
of his due process rights. See ECF No. 1 at 4. To
state a claim for violation of due process, Plaintiff must
allege facts showing: “(1) a deprivation of a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and
(2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.”
Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.
2003). Here, it appears that Plaintiff is asserting a claim
for violation of his due process rights related to his
discharge from the United States Army on March 17, 1972.
See ECF No. 1 at 5-6.
Complaint does not identify the liberty or property interest
at issue and does not allege any facts regarding the denial
of procedural protections. Although Plaintiff alleges that he
was about to go on emergency leave by the Red Cross and that
he believed his life was being threatened, these allegations
do not show that Plaintiff was denied procedural protections
by Defendants. See ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff does
not allege how these facts relate to his claim against
Defendants for a violation of his due process rights. See
id. at 5-6. Further, Plaintiff does not allege any facts
regarding how each Defendant named in the Complaint violated
his rights. The only act alleged in the Complaint is
Plaintiff's discharge, which would potentially implicate
Defendant United States Army, but there are no facts
regarding any action by Defendant Department of Veteran
Affairs, Defendant Disabled American Veterans, or Defendant
Olympic Moving & Storage, Inc. The Court is unable to
discern a basis in the Complaint for any claim against
Defendant Department of Veteran Affairs, Defendant Disabled
American Veterans, or Defendant Olympic Moving & Storage,
response to Defendant Olympic Moving & Storage,
Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement, Plaintiff
filed a Response in which Plaintiff states that Defendant
Olympic Moving & Storage, Inc. engaged in
“discriminatory practices.” See ECF No.
16. However, there are no factual allegations in the
Complaint regarding any actions of Defendant Olympic Moving
& Storage, Inc. See ECF No. 1. If Plaintiff
wishes to assert a claim against Defendant Olympic Moving
& Storage, Inc., he must include sufficient factual
allegations in his complaint to support that claim.
to the extent Plaintiff is asserting a claim based on his
discharge that occurred in 1972, such claim appears to be
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Actions
challenging a discharge from the armed services are subject
to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2401(a). See Davenport v. England, 222
Fed.Appx. 551, 552 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying six-year statute
of limitations to a pro se plaintiff's complaint against
the Navy challenging his discharge). Here, Plaintiff's
Complaint was filed forty-five years after his discharge,
well after the six-year statute of limitations expired.
the Complaint is deficient, the Court recognizes that
“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can
cure the defect . . ., a pro se litigant is entitled to
notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity
to amend.” Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66
F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff be given leave to
file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies
identified above. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint, the document must be clearly designated as the
“First Amended Complaint, ” must be retyped or
rewritten, and may not incorporate any part of the original
Complaint by reference. See Local Rule 10.3.
Plaintiff's amended complaint must include short, plain
statements telling the court how each named Defendant has
injured Plaintiff and what each Defendant did and how those
specific facts create a plausible claim for relief.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
the Court recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff be given leave to
file an amended complaint, the Court also RECOMMENDS that the
pending motions, including Plaintiff's request for a
letter of credit, ECF No. 8, Defendant Olympic Moving &
Storage, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF
No. 11, and Defendant Disabled American Veterans' Motion
to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, be DENIED AS MOOT.
Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court:
1) DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice;
2) GRANT Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint curing
the deficiencies identified above after the district court