The Defendants in Defendant List A (except Robert Crispin) and Defendant
List B (hereinafter all of these Defendants will be referred to as
"UNUM"0, through undersigned counsel and Defendant Robert Crispin
(hereinafter "Crispin"), through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to
F.R.Civ. P. 8 and F.R. Civ. P. 12 (f), jointly move this court to
dismiss and/or to strike the Complaint in its entirety or in part bcause
it fails to present a "simple, concise and direct" statement of the
causes of action and is replete with redundant, immaterial, impertinent
and scandalous material. Accordingly, UNUM and Crispin have no notice of
the bases of Plaintiff's claims.  In the absence of the requested
relief, UNUM and Crispin will suffer prejudice by having to sift and
decipher through allegations the majority of which appear to have
absolutely nothing to do with the underlying claims of Plaintiff Judy
Morris, MD (hereinafter "Morris").

Morris purchased individual disability insurance from UNUM and obtained
long-term disability insurance through a policy purchased by her former
employer, Harrington Hospital. Morris now asserts that UNUM improperly
denied her benefits under these two policies.  This should be a
straightforward matter as this case does not present a novel issue.
However, Morris has filed a 290 page Complaint and an appended Glossary
which extends it to 301 pages.  In addition the Complaint purports to
include, by reference, an additional document entitled, "Indictment of
UNUM," which document has never even been served on UNUM or Crispin and
which when viewed on Morris' website is an additional 74 pages of
narrative.  Morris has brought suit against over 60 parties and 1000 Doe
Defendants not yet named.  morris has led UNUM and Crispin into a
factual and legal morass.

1. The Complaint Must Be Dismissed in its Entirety Because It Fails to
Comport with Rule 8.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e) states that "each averment shall be
simple, concise and direct." Rule 8(e) supplements the requirement of
Rule8(a) which mandates a "short and plain" statement of the party's
request for relief.  The Court in Newman v Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 115 FRD 341 (D. Ma1987) applied both Rules 8(a) and 8(e)
and dismissed a complaint in a civil rights matter that was 21 pages in
length with 70 pages of exhibits. id. at 344.  The Court based its
dismissal on the following factors.  First the complaint was
"argumentative, prolix and verbose" and the "detail in the complaint
[was] not necessary and the pleading of evidence [made the defendant's
tasks in answering unnessarily difficult." Id. at 344.  Secondly, the
Court considered "pragmatic matters' and found that the time and expense
required of the defendants and the Court to "decipher this overly
detailed complaint and the even more detailed answers" warranted
dismissal. Id.

Morris is a pro se litigant, but this does not mean that she is entitled
to file pleadings which are impermissible under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  "The First Circuit hold a pro se litigant to a
standard of pleading less stringent than that for lawyers but this
cannot be taken to mean that pro se complaints are held to no standard
at all." Gree v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 108 F.R.D. 217, 218 (D.
Ma 1985).  Under Rule 8 "[c]omplaints which ramble, which needlessly
speculate, accuse and condemn, and which contain circuitious diatribes
far removed from the heart of the claim...must be dismissed." Id. See
also, Martin v Hunt, 28 F.R.D. 35, 36 (D. Ma 1961)(47 page complaint
dismissed as "argumentative, redundant and verbose and contain[ing]
material which is both impertinent and scandalous.) Footnote 1

Footnote: Other courts are in accord. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F. 3d 1172
(9th Cir, 1996); Gibson v Cripple Creek, 48 F. 3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1995);
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F. 2d 40 (2nd cir. 1988); Ausherman v. Stump,
643 F. 2d 715 (10th Cir. 1981); Gordon v. Green, 602 F. 2d 743 (5th Cir.

Based on the weight of authority, the Complaint filed by Morris is
improper and must be dismissed in its entirety.  The pleading is teaming
with examples of excessive verbiage, and redundancy throughout its 301
pages.  The Complaint abounds with references to and quotes from case
law or testimony of other legal cases which have nothing whatsoever to
do wit the instant claims (Paragraphs 2B, 25, 30, 74, 113).  quotations
from treatises, dictionaries, newspapers, annual reports and statutes,
many of which are immaterial, entail approximately 85 pages alone.
Morris engages in lengthy and immaterial diatribes against HMO's, modern
medicine, UNUM, the insurance industry in general, public officials and
individuals who are unnamed but nonetheless discussed (paragraphs 4, 12A
& B, 14, 15, 56, 105-106, 108-111).

Morris purports to represent all of the citizens of the United States
and of Massachusetts and uses 29 pages to list witnesses and "victims"
("coded" and "uncoded") who are not parties as well as "victims" not
even known to Morris.  Often, the Complaint confusingly bounces back and
forth from allegations relating to Morris' claim for benefits to
virulent accusations regarding these faceless aggrieved "claimants."
This discursive pleading eviscerates UNUM's and Crispin's right, under
the Federal Rules of civil Procedure, to notice of allegations of her

In addition, a review of the Complaint makes it clear that Morris is
improperly using this pleading as a platform to further her crusade
against the insurance industry and as a means to recruit her named and
unnamed "victims" and to publicize her website.

Because UNUM and Crispin do not have the benefit of notice of the claims
being brought against them as mandated by Rule 8, they are manifestly
prejudiced.  In addition, there will be considerable time and other
resources wasted by the Court, UNUM, and Crispin.  This Complaint is a
perfect example of the surplusage and incoherence Rule 8 was designed to
prevent.  The Defendants should not be required to answer this
argumentative, rambling, redundant and impertinent complaint.  UNUM and
Crispin request that the Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

II. The Complaint Must be Dismissed in Its Entirety Or Portions of the
Complaint must be stricken Because the Complaint Fails to Comport with
Rule 12(f)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (f) provides, in pertinent part, that
the Court may order stricken from any pleading any "redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Because thsi type of
matter pervades the Complaint, the Court should strike the complaint in
its entirety.  If the Court determines that it will not dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety on either ground, it must strike those
portions of the Complaint which are redundant, impertinent and
scandalous.  All references to the "Indictment of UNUM" must also be
stricken because it has never been served on UNUM or Crispin and is not
part of the Complaint.  Morris should be required to resubmit an amended
Complaint with these portions removed, the Court should order that all
copies of the original Complaint be stricken from the record.

The First Circuit applied Rule 12 9f) to strike portions of a Complaint
in Alvarado-Morales v digital Equipment Corporation, 843 F.2d613 (1st
cir. 1988).  The Plaintiffs in this case brought an action for physical
and emotional damages allegedly arising from a resignation plan
instituted by their employers.  The Court upheld the decision of the
District Court to strick portions of the Complaint which impugned the
character of the employer corporation.  The court struck such terms as
"brainwash," "concentration camp" and "torture," stating that they were
superfluous and not related to the elements of the cause of action. Id
at 618.

Again, the fact that Morris is a Pro Se Litigant does not given her free
license to impugn the character of UNUM or Crispin or to make scurrilous
and unsupported statements that are unrelated to any element of her
nebulous claims.  In Maharin v. Moss, 313 F. Supp. 1263 (E>D> Mo1970)
the Court dismissed the complaint of a Pro Se litigant on the grounds
that it was "incoherent, rambling and largely unintelligible." Id at
1264.  The court found the allegations to be "scurrilous, scandalous and
unsupported by factual allegations....immaterial and unrelated to
plaintiff's cause of action." Id.  In this case Plaintiff alleged that
the Defendants were controlled by the Mafia and were known as the
"Missouri Combination."

The Morris Complaint is replete with scandalous and impertinent material
which prejudices and impugns both UNUM and Crispin.  This pattern of
pleading begins on page 2 of the complaint where Morris dedicates her
effort sto a man whom she alleges was driven to "suicide" by UNUM,
followed by a Biblical verse which is entirely irrelevant to the
Complaint.  By way of further examples, UNUM is also accused of using
the courts as a vehicle to carry out extortion (Paragraph 3) and wishing
to "eliminate" Morris (Paragraph 10).  She included the salaries of top
UNUM executives which is clearly impertinent information (Paragraph 48)
and states that UNUM has a "tradition of corruption dating back to 1881"
based on an internet notice (Paragraph 35F).  She then discusses "coded"
and uncoded" "victims" and states that IF any of them should commit
suicide, it may be due to UNUM.  These are but a few of numerous
examples of scandalous and/or impertinent material that must be struck
from the Complaint by the Court. See Footnote 2.

Footnote 2: A non-exclusive listing of examples of scandalous and
impertinent material in the Complaint is attached to this motion as
Appendix A.

For all of the reasons set forth above the court must dismiss or strike
the complaint in its entirety because it violates both F.R. Civ. P. 8
and F. R. Civ. P. 12 (f).  If the court does not dismiss or strick the
Complaint in its entirety, UNUM and Crispin respectfully request the
Court to strike the scandalous and impertinent material in the Complaint
which clearly impugns the character of the Defendants and prejudices
them in their ability to understand the exact nature of the charges
being brough against them by Morris.  :UNUM and Crispin should not be
required to answer the Complaint in its present rambling, circuitous,
redundant, and scurrilous state.

Signatures of Peard, Katherine Roberson (Springfield Attorneys), Kayatta
and Sanchez.

On December 13, 1998, I placed a call to Plaintiff Judy Morris and left
her a message asking her to call me as I needed to confer with her about
a motion I was contemplating filing.  Judy Morris has not returned my
phone call as of the date of the filing of this motion.

Signed by Pat Peard.

Top of Page

Judydoc's Diary Page

Judydoc's Home Page

Insurance Page

Uncivilization and its Discontents

Home Page

Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net

Email me, Bill Hammel
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: December 28, 1998
Last Updated: May 28, 2000