Karen W. Cooper and Tenisha N. Jiggetts, Appellants v. District of Columbia, et al., Appellees (2017)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to proceed pro se, the motion for summary affirmance, and the opposition thereto, which includes a motion for summary reversal, it is

ORDERED that the motion to proceed pro se be dismissed as moot. Appellants do not need the court's permission to proceed pro se. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellants' action without prejudice after determining that their fourth amended complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-73 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Appellants are bound by their attorney's actions. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962). Furthermore, their conclusory assertions about the length of the complaint are insufficient to overcome the district court's detailed explanation of why the complaint was unnecessarily long and confusing and therefore ran afoul of Rule 8, and the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice where appellants failed to raise a statute-of-limitations argument below. See Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057, 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam