The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin has included an admission that he has no case in his opposition to Lee Stranahan’s motion to dismiss the Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. RICO Madness.Unfortunately for TDPK, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Supreme Court decisions require that his case be pleaded with particularity. He needs to say that Defendant A took action B on date C and caused damage D. Furthermore, since TDPK is alleging fraud, Rule 9 applies; it states “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud …”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving civil procedure. It heightened the pleading requirement for Federal civil cases, requiring that plaintiffs include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible—not merely possible or conceivable—that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the Court clarified and tightened the pleading standard set forth in Twombly. “Threadbare” recitations of the element of a tort with no connection to what happened in the real world are not acceptable. A well-pleaded allegation says who did what to whom, when it occurred, and what the resulting damage was. With particularity.
* * * * *
You know, TDPK’s opposition to Lee’s motion amounts to a surreply to my motion, and the Local Rules don’t allow for surreplies without leave from the Court. I could try to have it thrown out on that basis. Or I could let it stand with its admission that Kimberlin has no case.