Comment: yep - he's got a long way to go...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "Do not be confused by the (see in situ)

yep - he's got a long way to go...

in order to make lemonade out of this lemon. The judge says that he has to accept as true any well-pled factual allegations and construe any inferences in a positive way toward the plaintiffs. But then he points out that the claims aren't clear, and he can't figure out which defendant did what to which plaintiff, and what the harm was. After listing off the complaints, he has this to say (which is somewhat harsh):

"These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs’ vague reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.

Thus, this Court does not accept these allegations as true. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned that complaint failed to “clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which defendants” and noted that the “purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes”)."