Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Order: Armstrong v. Tygart and U.S. Anti-Doping Agency

Order: Armstrong v. Tygart and U.S. Anti-Doping Agency

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14,533|Likes:
Published by Staci Zaretsky

More info:

Published by: Staci Zaretsky on Jul 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/11/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE
UNITEDSTATES
DISTRICTCOURT
FOR THE
WESTERNDISTRICTOF
TEXASAUSTINDIVISIONLANCE
ARMSTRONG,Plaintiff,
-vs-
TRAVISTYGART,inhis
official
capacity
as
ChiefExecutiveOfficer of
the
UnitedStates
Anti-Doping
Agency,
and
UNITEDSTATES
ANTI-
DOPING AGENCY,Defendants.
ORDER
F!!
ED
2012JUL.9
PH
2:45
tjos
Case
No. A-12-CA-606-SSBE IT
REMEMBERED
on
this
daythe Court
reviewedthefile in the above-styled
cause,andspecifically
Plaintiff
Lance
Armstrong's
Complaint
[#1],
his
Motionfor
TemporaryRestrainingOrder
[#2],
and
hismemorandum
[#3]
andexhibits
[#4]
insupportthereof. Havingreviewedthe
documents,the
relevant
law, and thefile
asa
whole,the Court
now
enters thefollowingopinion
andorders
DISMISSING
Armstrong's
complaint
and
motionWITHOUTPREJUDICE.FederalRule
of
Civil Procedure
8(a)
requires
that a
plaintiff's
complaint
contain "short
and
plain"
statements
of
both
thebasis
of
the
court'sjurisdiction,
and the
plaintiff's
legalclaimfor
relief.
Likewise,Rule 8(d)(1)states,
"Eachallegation
must besimple,concise,
anddirect."
TheSupremeCourthasrecently
held that
"a
complaintmust
containsufficientfactualmatter, accepted
as
true,to
'state
a
claim
to
relief
that
is
plausible
onits
face."
Ashcroft
v.
Iqbal,
556
U.S.662,
678 (2009)
(quotingBell
Atlantic
Corp.
v.
Twombly,
550 U.S.544,570
(2007)).Rule
8
prescribes
a
middleground
of
specificity,not requiring
"
detailed
factual
allegations,"
butdemanding"morethan
an
1
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 3
 
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-meaccusation."
Id.
(quoting
Twombly,
550
U.S.at555).Thus,
"a pleadingthat
offers
'labels
and
conclusions'
or
'a
formulaicrecitation
of
the elements
of
a cause
of
actionwill not
do,"
Id.
(quoting
Twombly,
550 U.S.
at
555),
nor
willacomplaint rifewith argumentand
"other
thingsthat
a
pleader, aware
of
andfaithful
to
thecommand
of
the FederalRules
of
Civil Procedure,knows tobe completelyextraneous,"
Gordon
v.
Green,
602
F.2d
743,
745
(5th
Cir.1979).
Ultimately, what
Rule
8
demands
is
a shortand plainstatement
of
detailedfacts,
not
a
mechanical recital
of
boilerplate
allegations,
noras
is
more relevant
herea
lengthy andbitterpolemic
againstthe named
defendants.
Armstrong's
complaint
is far from
short, spanningeighty
pages andcontaining
261
numberedparagraphs,many
of
which havemultiple
subparts.Worse,
the
bulk
of
these paragraphscontain"allegations"that
are
whollyirrelevant
to
Armstrong's
claimsand
which,the Courtmust presume,were included solelytoincrease
media
coverage
of
this case,and to
incitepublicopinion
againstDefendants.
See,
e.g.,
Compl.
[#1]
10
("USADA's
kangaroocourt proceedingwouldviolate
due
processeven
if
USADAhadjurisdiction
topursue itscharges
against
Mr.
Armstrong.").1
Indeed,
vast swaths
of
the
complaintcould
be
removedentirely, and
most
of
the remainingparagraphssubstantiallyreduced,
withoutthe
loss
of
anylegally
relevantinformation.
Nor
are
Armstrong's
claims"plain":althoughhis causes
of
action
are,
thankfully, clearly
enumerated,the
excessiveprecedingrhetoric
makesitdifficult to
relatethem
toany
particular
factualsupport.This
Court
is
not inclined
toindulge
Armstrong's
desirefor publicity,self-aggrandizement,
1
Contrary to
Armstrong's
apparent belief,pleadingsfiled
in
the
United
States
DistrictCourts
are
not
pressreleases,internet blogs,
orpieces
of
investigativej
ournalism.All parties,and
their lawyers,
are
expected
tocomply withthe rules
of
this Court,and face
potential
sanctions
if
they
donot.
-2-
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 3

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Doug Mataconis liked this
William Eshelman liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->