Miller v. Johnson
District Court, District of Columbia · 1982-06-08 · cited 11×
The case involved pro se plaintiffs filing a lengthy complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against dozens of defendants, including federal and state judges, Idaho officials, medical associations, and unknown parties, alleging that Idaho was not a valid state, that laws regulating naturopathy imposed illegal restraints, and that officials engaged in conspiracies, treason, racketeering, and other violations collectively termed the 'Idaho Watergate.' The court granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against the Idaho Secretary of State and bonding companies sua sponte. The core reasoning was that the 168-page complaint was prolix, verbose, confusing, repetitious, and unintelligible, violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 8(e)(1) by failing to provide a short and plain statement of the claims, and that it failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted.