Eravi v. Jones et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PHILLIP MICHAEL ERAVI,
Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:25-CV-04087-JAR-GEB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Phillip Michael Eravi brings this action against Defendants Kelly Jones, Ronald
Gordon-Ross, Bailey Salsbury, Lindsay Bishop, Jeanice Kerr Swift, and Unified School District
No. 497, Douglas County, Kansas, arising out of restrictions imposed on his speech and
participation at Lawrence Public Schools Board of Education meetings and related exclusions
from school district property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the United States
Constitution. This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 10,
14, 27, 29, 31). The motions are fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons
stated below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions, but also grants Plaintiff leave to amend.
Every Defendant except Jones moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8.1 Nevertheless, the Court may also address Rule 8 deficiencies sua sponte.2 Rule 8 provides
that a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement” of the claims and that its allegations be
“simple, concise, and direct.”3 “The purpose of [Rule 8] is to eliminate prolixity in pleading and
1 Defendants also move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). As discussed further below, because the Court
dismisses the Complaint under Rule 8, it does not reach Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
2 Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007).
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1).
Case 5:25-cv-04087-JAR-GEB Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
to achieve brevity, simplicity, and clarity.”4 A pleading should not be so lengthy or complex that
it places an undue burden on a responding party.5 Failure to provide a short and plain statement
that complies with Rule 8 is sufficient grounds to dismiss a complaint.6 This is a matter within
the district court’s discretion.7
Here, the Complaint is neither short nor plain.8 It spans 100 pages and contains 259
numbered paragraphs, many of which consist of multiple sentences and extended narrative rather
than concise factual allegations. Moreover, many of the paragraphs contain “considerable
commentary and legal arguments that serve little purpose other than to muddy the waters,” rather
than clearly identify the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims.9 The Complaint also reproduces
lengthy, single-spaced transcript excerpts from school board meetings that occupy a substantial
portion of the pleading. But “[a] Rule 8 pleading is not the proper place for the plaintiff to plead
all of the evidence or to fully argue the claims.”10 The Complaint also devotes significant
attention to the actions, comments, and alleged constitutional injuries of Carrie Schmidt and
Justin Spiehs, even though neither individual is a party to this lawsuit.
These irrelevant and argumentative allegations bury the material allegations pertinent to
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants and make it unnecessarily difficult to discern which facts
4 Chavez v. Huerfano County, 195 F. App’x 728, 730 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Knox v. First Sec. Bank of
Utah, 196 F.2d 112, 117 (10th Cir. 1952)).
5 D.M. by and through Morgan v. Wesley Med. Ctr. LLC, No. 18-2158-KHV-KGG, 2018 WL 4222382, at
*3 (D. Kan. Sept. 5, 2018).
6 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1147–48 (10th Cir. 2007).
7 Schupper v. Edie, 193 F. App’x 744, 745 (10th Cir. 2006).
8 See Doc. 1.
9 Baker v. Blue Valley Sch. Dist. USD 229, No. 2:21-cv-02210-HLT-TJJ, 2021 WL 2577468, at *5 (D.
Kan. June 23, 2021).
10 Chavez v. Huerfano County, 195 F. App’x 728, 730 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.
A., 534 U.S. 506, 512–13 (2002)).
Case 5:25-cv-04087-JAR-GEB Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
support which claims. And “it is not the job of the Court or the opposing parties to sort through
a pleading to try to construct a plaintiff’s claims.”11
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8 and
dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. However, given the early stage of this litigation, the
Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. To ensure that the issues identified in this
Order are not repeated, any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8, must not exceed 25
pages in length, and must be filed within 21 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. 10, 14, 27, 29, 31) are granted. However, the Court also grants Plaintiff leave to
amend within 21 days of the date of this Order. Any amended complaint must comply with Rule
8 and shall not exceed 25 pages in length.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2026
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Givens v. City of Wichita, No. 6:23-cv-01033-HLT-TJJ, 2024 WL 1198503, at *7 (D. Kan. Mar. 20,
2024).
Case 5:25-cv-04087-JAR-GEB Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3