Darryl Adams v. Frank Coppola

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-1072
DARRYL ADAMS; GLENN BENNETT;
SHERRI BRIDGETT; CHARLES GAINES;
MICHAEL HAMPTON, SHARON LARKIN-JONES;
TINA MCCORKLE; DERRICK WILLIAMS
Appellants
v.
FRANK COPPOLA; KEN KUZINS;
HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF
PITTSBURGH, a Political
sub-division
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 00-cv-01513)
District Court Judge: Honorable William L. Standish
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 19, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, ALITO, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: December 20, 2002)

-- 1 of 5 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellants are officers for the Pittsburgh Housing Authority who filed a
complaint alleging various incidents of unfair treatment at work on the basis of race, sex,
and age. The District Court, after reviewing their original complaint, characterized it as
“rambling” and replete with “typographical and grammatical errors” and expressed
frustration with its inability cogently to articulate its apparent claims. The court then
granted the defense’s motions to dismiss many claims without prejudice pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) and to strike the remainder of the claims for failure to comply with
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiffs were invited to file an amended complaint in
compliance with Rule 8(a). The amended complaint incorporated the entirety of the
original complaint, included additional contentions highlighting some aspects of its
allegations, and repeated claims that had already been dismissed. The District Court then
dismissed the amended complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8(a) and with the terms
of the court’s prior order. Appellants now argue that the District Court erred in doing so.
Our standard of review “‘“is not whether we would have imposed a more lenient penalty had
we been sitting in the trial judge’s place, but whether the trial judge abused his discretion in
imposing the penalty he did.”’” In re Westinghouse Securities Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d
Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Westinghouse actually mirrors closely the procedural schema of the instant
case. In Westinghouse the District Court urged the plaintiffs to “replead in conformity
with the requirements of Rule 8,” threatening a dismissal with prejudice if the plaintiffs
failed to do so. 90 F.3d at 703. The plaintiffs declared their “intention to stand on the
[original] Complaint,” eliciting the promised dismissal from the District Court. Id. We
held: “The district court expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining
claims in compliance with Rule 8 would result in the dismissal of those claims. The
dismissal with prejudice that followed plaintiffs’ decision not to amend was not an abuse of
discretion.” Id. at 704.
The same reasoning applies here given the plaintiffs’ deliberate defiance of
the District Court. The plaintiffs’ carelessly drafted complaint further reinforces the
propriety of the District Court’s decision to dismiss. We have reviewed the amended
complaint and the incorporated original and concur with the District Court’s
characterization of the documents. The amended complaint clearly lacks “the simplicity
and brevity of statement which [Rule 8] contemplate[s].” FED. R. CIV. P. 84.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
/s/ Samuel A. Alito
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 5 --

4

-- 4 of 5 --

-- 5 of 5 --