The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Rambo
Before the court is the amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed, pro se, by Plaintiff Ronald L. Bricker, an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Houtzdale"). (Doc. 14.) Named as defendants are several individuals employed by the Department of Corrections ("DOC"),*fn1 several attorneys and other individuals employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,*fn2 and several judicial officers.*fn3 Plaintiff's claims relate to his criminal conviction and current and post conditions of confinement.
In a memorandum and order dated April 29, 2009, the court determined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint on or before May 19, 2009. (Id.) The memorandum and order forewarned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would result in dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2009.*fn4 (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff did not previously seek an extension of time in which to file the amended complaint. Thus, the amended complaint is untimely and will not be accepted by the court. Moreover, since Plaintiff has failed to cure the pleading deficiencies of the original pleading, the court will dismiss this action.
Pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff, are accorded substantial deference in federal court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). They are not, however, free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has not adhered to the minimal demands of Rules 8 and 20.
Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's 114-paragraph amended complaint does not meet the mandates of this rule. The following are some examples of the rambling, disjointed, and confounding averments, replete with typographical and other errors, presented in the amended complaint:
51. Pennsylvania has an indeterminate sentencing law for charges of felony offenders, meaning that causes which wasn't criminal, are made into felony charges. All happening while simultaneously acknowledging the realities of a prison population where some offenders are incorrigible innocent of the charges. This is done by Corrupted Judges and Attorney's of the courts. Such as the defendant's named herein. Pa. General Assembly created a classic indeterminate sentencing SCHEME, inbracing all fundamental tents of its underlying penological philophy, including its embeded bias favoring rehabilitation while simultaneously acknowledging incorrigibility. All done in violation of Pa. Const. 1968 which having NO CRIMINAL CODE which violates U.S. Constitution. So all these violations must stop, so to stop the violation of the Due Process of Law, and United States Constitution.
61. Plaintiff was convicted in a court under the gold-fringed military flag of war, enforcing the private, general equity, admiraly/maritime law in the courtrooms. Not the American flag descibed in title 4.. Admiralty is an unique jurisdiction in that it carries criminal penalties for civil offenses, only jurisdiction where military might is employed to private contracts, Military courtrooms can not bring an accused under such jurisdiction, unless there is a valid international contract in dispute, but our courts today disguise it as Statutory jurisdiction.
69. Plaintiff is fully aware of the ALL-CAPITAL-LETTER name, the ens legis from his natural name. The new all cap NAME is a corporate business name that was entered in the 14th Amendment under citizen of the United States once U.S. Government became bankrupt. This method to conduct business in making the legal fiction, property, so since the all-capital-letter is property, just compensation must be awarded.
93. "Ironically", the courtroons of today are under military occupation by conquering foreign creditors of the Federal Reserve/IMF and its garrison troops, the British Esquire of the bench and the Bar Association, under mission statement. The term mission statement is a military designator and any organization with a mission statement is a military unit. All 15 bureaus of the Puerto Rico, bassed Department of Treasury including Tobacco and Firearms, all state tax agencies, and all Bar Association operate under a mission statement. Which means Esquire, Judges, and Attorneys are military officers of the Crown another front for Federal Reserve/IMF carring out overall mission of the bar. (Doc. 14.) In light of such averments, Defendants would be hard-pressed to form a meaningful response to such an amended pleading.
Plaintiff also has failed to comply with the court's order with respect to joining unrelated claims and parties in one complaint. Rule 20(a) provides:
(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined.
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or ...