{"cached_at":"2026-10-29T10:41:55.186284+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71878124","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","id":71878124,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/okwd/","court_id":"okwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10883236/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10883226/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10740188/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/15333/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2025-11-05T12:49:05.901855-08:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T11:05:13.968326-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jodi W. Dishman","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-11-05","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-06-11","case_name_short":"Patrzalek","case_name":"Patrzalek v. Finance Cartel The","case_name_full":"","slug":"patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the","docket_number":"5:25-cv-01312","docket_number_core":"2501312","docket_number_raw":"5:25-cv-01312","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"5","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JD","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"133263","cause":"18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act","nature_of_suit":"470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-11-05T12:49:05.880062-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642383/","id":16642383,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.913005-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.913015-08:00","name":"Larry Silverstein","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642382/","id":16642382,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Together with unknown co-conspirators","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.892215-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.892225-08:00","name":"John and Jane  Doe Corporations 1-50","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642381/","id":16642381,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.873599-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.873609-08:00","name":"Ukrainian Organized Crime Networks","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642380/","id":16642380,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.857332-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.857344-08:00","name":"Israeli Organized Crime Networks","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642379/","id":16642379,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.825102-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.825116-08:00","name":"Yakuza Factions","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642378/","id":16642378,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Cyber Gang Network","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.803476-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.803494-08:00","name":"Cryptodickbutt Regime","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642377/","id":16642377,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.785416-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.785430-08:00","name":"Triad Criminal Syndicates","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642376/","id":16642376,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.767832-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.767848-08:00","name":"Transnational and Cyber-Organized Crime Networks","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642375/","id":16642375,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.750119-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.750140-08:00","name":"United States Congress","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642374/","id":16642374,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"CIA","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.708192-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.708212-08:00","name":"Central Intelligence Agency","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642373/","id":16642373,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Pentagon","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.558960-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.558977-08:00","name":"Department of Defense","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642372/","id":16642372,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individual-Capacity","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.417969-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.417985-08:00","name":"Central Intelligence Agency Personnel","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642371/","id":16642371,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individual-Capacity","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.399891-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.399908-08:00","name":"Department of Defense Personnel","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642370/","id":16642370,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Individual-Capacity","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.379919-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.379932-08:00","name":"Members of Congress and Congressional Staff","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642369/","id":16642369,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Yuga Labs","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.325541-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.325559-08:00","name":"Bored Ape Yacht Club","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642368/","id":16642368,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.203845-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.203861-08:00","name":"EPOCH LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642367/","id":16642367,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.106642-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.106653-08:00","name":"Stripchat.de","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642366/","id":16642366,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"North Atlantic Treaty Organization; named for ultra vires and commercial conduct only","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.087534-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.087547-08:00","name":"NATO","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642365/","id":16642365,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.066697-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.066716-08:00","name":"United Arab Emirates","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16642364/","id":16642364,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","docket_id":71878124,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"London Company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.043901-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T21:04:52.043910-08:00","name":"London City of","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467174238/","id":467174238,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482431631/","id":482431631,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/95/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-06-11T15:24:08.189734-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T15:24:08.200073-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"95","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906751750","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Returned Unexecuted","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T15:24:08.150785-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T15:24:08.160576-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-11","time_filed":"16:42:56","entry_number":95,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":405,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465711773/","id":465711773,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480922224/","id":480922224,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/92/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:38.605891-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T11:04:20.750690-07:00","sha1":"45687be13fd03a5fcdadf16c665d64579e389752","page_count":10,"file_size":234414,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263.92.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263.92.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 92      Filed 05/29/26    Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA\n\n KONRAD TADEUSZ PATRZALEK,                   )\n                      Plaintiff,             )\n                                             )\n v.                                          ) Case No. CIV-25-1312-SLP\n ELON MUSK, et al.,                          )\n                      Defendants.            )\n                                             )\n\n                                       ORDER\n\n       Before the Court are Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended\n\nComplaint. [Doc. Nos. 59, 61, 66, 68, 87]. Plaintiff filed Responses in Opposition to\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 72, 73, 74, 75]. Defendants AIPAC, BAYC\n\nLLC, Andreessen Horowitz, Donald J Trump, and Department of Government Efficiency\n\nfiled Replies to Plaintiff\u2019s Response in Opposition to their respective Motions to Dismiss.\n\n[Doc. No. 77, 78, 79, 90]. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants AIPAC\u2019s, X\n\nCorporation\u2019s, Donald J Trump\u2019s, and Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Motions to\n\nDismiss are GRANTED in part.         [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87].      Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. [Doc. Nos. 59,\n\n61]. Further, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES this action against Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emirates.\n\nI.     Introduction\n\n       On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his 63-page complaint, with\n\na 47-page exhibit, totaling 110 pages. [Doc. No. 1]. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed\n\nan amended complaint, totaling 108 pages and asserting 25 claims against 65-plus\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 92       Filed 05/29/26    Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\ndefendants. [Doc. No. 13]. The Court struck the amended the complaint for \u201cfailure to\n\ncomply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the case law interpreting the same, and\n\nthe Local Civil Rules.\u201d [Doc. No 14]. The Court granted leave to file a Second Amended\n\nComplaint by December 11, 2025, to cure the deficiencies outlined in the Court\u2019s Order.\n\nSee id. In a third attempt to craft his pleading, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,\n\non November 24, 2025. [Doc. No. 15]. For a fourth time, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended\n\nComplaint, [Doc. No. 16], without leave of Court. The Court struck the Third Amended\n\nComplaint which was in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 17].\n\nAccordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 15], is the operative\n\ncomplaint now before the Court. On February 3, 2026, more than two months after filing\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Exhibits to the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, [Doc. No. 45], consisting of an additional 258 pages.\n\n              Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, Department of\n\nGovernment Efficiency, Andreessen Horowitz, and BAYC LLC filed Motions to Dismiss\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, which are also now before the Court. [Doc. Nos. 59, 61,\n\n66, 68, 87]. Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, and Department of\n\nGovernment Efficiency filed Motions to Dismiss, in-part, on grounds that it is in violation\n\nof Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87]. The Court\n\nagrees that the Second Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 and, for the reasons discussed\n\nbelow, dismisses the Second Amended Complaint on those grounds.1\n\n\n1\n The Court notes that Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, Department of\nGovernment Efficiency, Andreessen Horowitz, and BAYC LLC moved for dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s\n                                             2\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 92       Filed 05/29/26     Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\nII.    Governing Standard\n\n       Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint \u201cmust\n\ncontain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief,\u201d\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), with allegations that are \u201csimple, concise, and direct,\u201d Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 8(d)(1). In other words, in accordance with Rule 8, Plaintiff must \u201cexplain what [the]\n\ndefendant did to him . . .; when the defendant did it; how the defendant\u2019s action harmed\n\nhim . . .; and, what specific legal right [he] believes the defendant violated.\u201d Nasious v. Two\n\nUnknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).\n\n       Rule 8 serves two purposes. It gives opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the\n\nclaim(s) against them so that they may respond to the complaint. And, it apprises the court\n\nof sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the\n\nclaimant has a legal right to relief. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir.\n\n2007). As the Tenth Circuit has explained:\n\n       Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in\n       evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom\n       plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions\n       of a complaint.\nId.\n\n       Additionally, Rule 10(b) requires Plaintiffs to state their claims \u201cin numbered\n\nparagraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,\u201d and provides\n\n\n\n\nSecond Amended Complaint on additional grounds. Since the Court grants dismissal of the Second\nAmended Complaint for violations of Rule 8, the Court will not address Defendants\u2019 remaining\narguments.\n                                               3\n\f       Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 92       Filed 05/29/26    Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\nthat separate claims must be stated in separate counts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rules 8 and 10\n\nwork together to require Plaintiffs to present their claims \u201cdiscretely and succinctly,\u201d so\n\nthat (1) the opposing party may \u201cframe a responsive pleading\u201d; and (2) the Court \u201ccan\n\ndetermine which facts support which claims\u201d and whether Plaintiffs have \u201cstated any\n\nclaims upon which relief can be granted.\u201d Cummings v. Direct Scaffold Supply, LLC, No.\n\nCIV-25-01460-JD, 2025 WL 3527405, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 9, 2025); see also Mann v.\n\nBoatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that \u201cRule 8 serves the\n\nimportant purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to inform\n\nthe defendants of the legal claims being asserted.\u201d)\n\n       As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is entitled to a liberal construction of his Complaint.\n\nSee Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, a pro se litigant must\n\n\u201cfollow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.\u201d Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d\n\n1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).\n\nIII.   Discussion\n\n       A.     The Second Amended Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 8\n\n       Despite the liberal construction given to a pro se litigant\u2019s pleading, Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading requirements. Defendant AIPAC\n\nargues that \u201cPlaintiff does not number his paragraphs, making answering the complaint\n\nparagraph by paragraph incredibly difficult.\u201d Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66]\n\nat 12. The Court agrees. Further, Defendants AIPAC and X Corporation point to the\n\nCourt\u2019s previous Order in which Plaintiff was advised of similar deficiencies in his first\n\n\n                                              4\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP           Document 92     Filed 05/29/26     Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\ncomplaint. See Order [Doc. No. 14] (\u201c[The complaint] contains unnumbered, single-\n\nspaced paragraphs, and it fails to state, in short and plain terms, a claim against each of the\n\n65-plus defendants showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.\u201d); See also Def. AIPAC\u2019s\n\nMot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66] at 28; Def. X Corp\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 68] at 16.\n\nPlaintiff has failed to adequately amend the Second Amended Complaint, despite an\n\nopportunity from the Court to do so. Like the first complaint, the unnumbered paragraphs\n\nin the Second Amended Complaint fail to state, in short and plain terms, a claim against\n\neach of the Defendants in this case.\n\n       Critically, as brought up in the pending Motions to Dismiss, it is not clear from the\n\nComplaint as to the specific actions taken by any specific Defendant or what particular\n\nclaims have been asserted against them. See Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66]\n\nat 13-14; Def. X Corp\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 68] at 17; See Def. Donald J Trump and\n\nU.S. Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 87] at 8. In the\n\nsection titled \u201cFactual Allegations\u201d, Plaintiff lumps together all Defendants, failing to\n\nattribute any purported actions to a specific Defendant. In the Section titled \u201cPattern of\n\nRacketeering\u201d, Plaintiff lists nine counts of alleged violations, asserting claims against the\n\ndefendants collectively, in one conclusory sentence per count. See e.g. [Doc. No. 15] at 10\n\n(Under Count II, stating \u201cDefendants knowingly agreed to facilitate the enterprise\u2019s\n\nobjectives and committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.\u201d) It is not clear what facts\n\nrelate to each count and to each Defendant, as well as which Defendants are implicated in\n\na particular count. Moreover, Plaintiff lists multiple causes of action under a single count.\n\nSee e.g. id. at 10 (asserting five causes of action under \u201cCount IV \u2013 Plagiarism,\n\n                                              5\n\f       Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 92        Filed 05/29/26      Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\nMisappropriation & Digital Weaponization.\u201d) Again, no Defendant is put on notice as to\n\nthe specific causes of action that are asserted against them.2\n\n       Plaintiff also submitted an additional 258 pages of exhibits, [Doc. No. 45], more\n\nthan two months after filing his Second Amended Complaint. Defendant AIPAC argues\n\nthat the exhibits \u201cread as a rambling manifesto of Plaintiff\u2019s stream of consciousness,\n\nmaking Plaintiff\u2019s SAC even more unintelligible, vague, confusing, and prolix.\u201d Def.\n\nAIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66] at 13. The Court agrees. Even if the Court were\n\nto consider the exhibits as part of Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, the \u201csheer\n\nlength\u201d of the pleading makes his claims \u201cunintelligible.\u201d3 Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148\n\n(affirming dismissal of 99-page complaint because \u201c[i]n its sheer length, [plaintiff] has\n\nmade her complaint unintelligible \u2018by scattering and concealing in a morass of\n\nirrelevancies the few allegations that matter\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)); see also Schupper v.\n\nEdie, 193 F. App'x 744, 745-46 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of 38-page complaint\n\nplus 120 pages of exhibits as \u201coverly long\u201d and \u201cprolix\u201d.) The exhibits are not clearly\n\n\n\n\n2\n  To the extent Plaintiff raises a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)\nclaim, \u201cpredicate acts of fraud. . .must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P.\n9(b).\u201d Ad-X Int'l, Inc. v. Kolbjornsen, 97 F. App'x 263, 265 (10th Cir. 2004). The Court need not\nreach the issue of whether Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint satisfies Rule 9\u2019s heightened pleading standard\nsince it fails to meet Rule 8\u2019s more general notice pleading, typically required of all litigants.\n3\n  Plaintiff\u2019s filing of Supplemental Exhibits to the Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 45], is\nin violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Federal Rule 15(a)(1), a \u201cparty may\namend its pleading once as a matter of course.\u201d See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). \u201cIn all other cases, a\nparty may amend its pleading only with the opposing party\u2019s written consent or the court\u2019s leave.\u201d\nSee Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend the operative complaint with\nthe Supplemental Exhibits. Further, he has already amended his pleading \u201conce as a matter of\ncourse.\u201d\n                                                 6\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP         Document 92      Filed 05/29/26     Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\nlabeled and do not give the Court any indication of how they relate to the individual\n\nDefendants or to specific claims raised in the Complaint.\n\n       Plaintiff filed responses to the Motions to Dismiss but fails to explain any of the\n\nRule 8 deficiencies identified by Defendants. In all three responses to the Motions to\n\nDismiss, Plaintiff states that \u201cRule 8 requires only a short and plain statement showing\n\nentitlement to relief\u201d and not proof of any \u201cevidentiary\u201d matter. See Resp. to Def. AIPAC\u2019s\n\nMot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 77] at 4; Resp. to Def. X Corp.\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 73]\n\nat 4; Resp. to Def. Donald J Trump and Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to\n\nDismiss [Doc. No. 88] at 8. Plaintiff also states, in a conclusory fashion, that the complaint\n\n\u201cidentifies the defendants, describes the alleged enterprise, explains the coordinated\n\nconduct, and identifies the resulting harm to Plaintiff\u2019s investigative and professional\n\nactivities.\u201d Resp. to Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 77] at 4; see Resp. to Def.\n\nX Corp.\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 73] at 4; Resp. to Def. Donald J Trump and\n\nDepartment of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 88] at 8. Neither of\n\nthese statements explain how individual Defendants are apprised of the specific actions\n\ntaken by them or the particular claims asserted against them.\n\n       Upon reviewing the Complaint and supplemental exhibits, the Court concludes that\n\n\u201cnot even the most attentive of readers could figure out who did what to whom.\u201d Mann,\n\n477 F.3d at 1148. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the Complaint is proper as to\n\nall Defendants. See, e.g., McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 F. App\u2019x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014)\n\n(\u201cIt is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a lengthy, poorly\n\n\n\n                                              7\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 92       Filed 05/29/26     Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\ndrafted complaint and voluminous exhibits in order to construct plaintiff\u2019s causes of\n\naction.\u201d)\n\n       The Court notes that Defendants Andreessen Horowitz and BAYC LLC also filed\n\nMotions to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. Nos. 59, 61], but on\n\nnon-Rule 8 grounds. Further, Defendants Elon Musk and United Arab Emirates are yet to\n\nbe served and have not filed any motions in this case.4 However, the Court sua sponte\n\nraises the Rule 8 issue as to these Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Rodriguez\n\nv. Nationwide Homes, Inc., 756 F. App\u2019x 782, 785 (10th Cir. 2018) (\u201cIf a complaint fails to\n\nmeet these basic pleading requirements, a district court may dismiss the action sua sponte\n\nfor failure to comply with Rule 8.\u201d); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents,\n\n492 F.3d 1158, 1161 and n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007) (\u201cAnd, to be sure, a failure to satisfy Rule 8\n\ncan supply a basis for dismissal: Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a district court to\n\ndismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\nProcedure.\u201d) The Court finds that its Rule 8 analysis applies to all Defendants and\n\naccordingly dismisses the Second Amended Complaint on such grounds. The Court will\n\ntherefore deny Defendants Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss\n\nas moot.\n\n\n\n\n4\n  The Court previously issued an Order granting Plaintiff an additional sixty days to effectuate\nservice on Defendant Musk. See Order [Doc. No. 89]. Regardless of the status of service on\nDefendant Musk, the Court, having reviewed the operative Second Complaint, finds dismissal of\nthe action is warranted.\n                                               8\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 92     Filed 05/29/26     Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\n       B.     Leave to Amend\n\n       The Court finds Plaintiff should not be granted further leave to amend. The Court\n\nrecognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings are held to a less\n\nstringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. But Plaintiff\u2019s pro se status does not\n\nexcuse him from \u201cfollow[ing] the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.\u201d\n\nNielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Fleming v. Coulter, 573 F.\n\nApp\u2019x 765, 769 (10th Cir. 2014) (\u201cComplaints drafted by pro se litigants . . . are not\n\ninsulated from the rule that dismissal with prejudice is proper for failure to state a claim\n\nwhen \u2018it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would\n\nbe futile to give him an opportunity to amend.\u2019\u201d (quoting Perkins v. Kan. Dep\u2019t of Corr.,\n\n165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999)).\n\n       If the Court were to grant leave to amend, this would be Plaintiff\u2019s fifth attempt to\n\ncraft a plausible pleading. See Compl. [Doc. No. 1]; Stricken Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 13];\n\nSecond Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 15]; Stricken Third Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 16]. In the\n\nCourt\u2019s Orders striking Plaintiff\u2019s Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint,\n\nPlaintiff was informed that failure to comply with the Federal and Local Rules would result\n\nin the dismissal of this action. See Order [Doc. Nos. 14, 17]. The Court finds further leave\n\nto amend is not warranted under the circumstances of this case. Bradley v. Val-Mejias, 379\n\nF.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (\u201cAlthough Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend\n\nshall be given freely, the district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would\n\nbe futile.\u201d); see Bauchman for Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 562\n\n\n\n                                              9\n\f        Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP      Document 92     Filed 05/29/26    Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n(10th Cir. 1997) (\u201cA court properly may deny a motion for leave to amend as futile when\n\nthe proposed amended complaint would be subject to dismissal for any reason. . .\u201d)\n\nIV.      Conclusion\n\n         For the reasons set forth, the Second Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule\n\n8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, leave to amend would be futile.\n\n         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:\n\n         1.    Defendants AIPAC\u2019s, X Corporation\u2019s, Donald J Trump\u2019s, and Department\n\nof Government Efficiency\u2019s Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87] are GRANTED in\n\npart.\n\n         2.    Defendants Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss\n\nare DENIED as MOOT.\n\n         3.    This action is sua sponte DISMISSED as to Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emirates.\n\n         4.    Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 15] is DISMISSED\n\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Rule 8.\n\n         A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this\n\nOrder.\n\n         IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n                                             10\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-01T03:59:04.757640-07:00","document_number":"92","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906736248","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:38.571603-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T11:04:20.697504-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-29","time_filed":"16:54:20","entry_number":92,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":387,"description":" ORDER. 1)  66 ,  68 ,  87  Defendants AIPAC's, X Corporation's, Donald J Trump's, and Department of Government Efficiency's Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED in part. 2) Defendants Andreessen Horowitz\ufffd 39;s and BAYC LLC's Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. 3) This action is sua sponte DISMISSED as to Defendants Andreessen Horowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emirates. 4)  15  Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Rule 8. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Scott L. Palk on 5/29/2026. (llg)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465711744/","id":465711744,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480922196/","id":480922196,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/93/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:37.739674-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-29T15:22:37.748898-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"93","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906736257","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:37.703089-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-29T15:22:37.710407-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-29","time_filed":"16:57:36","entry_number":93,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":393,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465711682/","id":465711682,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480922133/","id":480922133,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/94/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:36.110089-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T11:05:14.000632-07:00","sha1":"baf35d1a8563659d9e6ab3fafe507e22d4711ef6","page_count":10,"file_size":269193,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263.94.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263/gov.uscourts.okwd.133263.94.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 94      Filed 05/29/26    Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA\n\n KONRAD TADEUSZ PATRZALEK,                   )\n                      Plaintiff,             )\n                                             )\n v.                                          ) Case No. CIV-25-1312-SLP\n ELON MUSK, et al.,                          )\n                      Defendants.            )\n                                             )\n\n                                       ORDER\n\n       Before the Court are Defendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended\n\nComplaint. [Doc. Nos. 59, 61, 66, 68, 87]. Plaintiff filed Responses in Opposition to\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 72, 73, 74, 75]. Defendants AIPAC, BAYC\n\nLLC, Andreessen Horowitz, Donald J Trump, and Department of Government Efficiency\n\nfiled Replies to Plaintiff\u2019s Response in Opposition to their respective Motions to Dismiss.\n\n[Doc. No. 77, 78, 79, 90]. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants AIPAC\u2019s, X\n\nCorporation\u2019s, Donald J Trump\u2019s, and Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Motions to\n\nDismiss are GRANTED in part.         [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87].      Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. [Doc. Nos. 59,\n\n61]. Further, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES this action against Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emirates.\n\nI.     Introduction\n\n       On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his 63-page complaint, with\n\na 47-page exhibit, totaling 110 pages. [Doc. No. 1]. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed\n\nan amended complaint, totaling 108 pages and asserting 25 claims against 65-plus\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 94       Filed 05/29/26    Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\ndefendants. [Doc. No. 13]. The Court struck the amended the complaint for \u201cfailure to\n\ncomply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the case law interpreting the same, and\n\nthe Local Civil Rules.\u201d [Doc. No 14]. The Court granted leave to file a Second Amended\n\nComplaint by December 11, 2025, to cure the deficiencies outlined in the Court\u2019s Order.\n\nSee id. In a third attempt to craft his pleading, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,\n\non November 24, 2025. [Doc. No. 15]. For a fourth time, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended\n\nComplaint, [Doc. No. 16], without leave of Court. The Court struck the Third Amended\n\nComplaint which was in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 17].\n\nAccordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 15], is the operative\n\ncomplaint now before the Court. On February 3, 2026, more than two months after filing\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Exhibits to the Second\n\nAmended Complaint, [Doc. No. 45], consisting of an additional 258 pages.\n\n              Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, Department of\n\nGovernment Efficiency, Andreessen Horowitz, and BAYC LLC filed Motions to Dismiss\n\nthe Second Amended Complaint, which are also now before the Court. [Doc. Nos. 59, 61,\n\n66, 68, 87]. Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, and Department of\n\nGovernment Efficiency filed Motions to Dismiss, in-part, on grounds that it is in violation\n\nof Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87]. The Court\n\nagrees that the Second Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 and, for the reasons discussed\n\nbelow, dismisses the Second Amended Complaint on those grounds.1\n\n\n1\n The Court notes that Defendants AIPAC, X Corporation, Donald J Trump, Department of\nGovernment Efficiency, Andreessen Horowitz, and BAYC LLC moved for dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s\n                                             2\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 94       Filed 05/29/26     Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\nII.    Governing Standard\n\n       Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint \u201cmust\n\ncontain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief,\u201d\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), with allegations that are \u201csimple, concise, and direct,\u201d Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 8(d)(1). In other words, in accordance with Rule 8, Plaintiff must \u201cexplain what [the]\n\ndefendant did to him . . .; when the defendant did it; how the defendant\u2019s action harmed\n\nhim . . .; and, what specific legal right [he] believes the defendant violated.\u201d Nasious v. Two\n\nUnknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).\n\n       Rule 8 serves two purposes. It gives opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the\n\nclaim(s) against them so that they may respond to the complaint. And, it apprises the court\n\nof sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are proved, that the\n\nclaimant has a legal right to relief. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir.\n\n2007). As the Tenth Circuit has explained:\n\n       Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in\n       evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom\n       plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions\n       of a complaint.\nId.\n\n       Additionally, Rule 10(b) requires Plaintiffs to state their claims \u201cin numbered\n\nparagraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,\u201d and provides\n\n\n\n\nSecond Amended Complaint on additional grounds. Since the Court grants dismissal of the Second\nAmended Complaint for violations of Rule 8, the Court will not address Defendants\u2019 remaining\narguments.\n                                               3\n\f       Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP        Document 94       Filed 05/29/26    Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\nthat separate claims must be stated in separate counts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rules 8 and 10\n\nwork together to require Plaintiffs to present their claims \u201cdiscretely and succinctly,\u201d so\n\nthat (1) the opposing party may \u201cframe a responsive pleading\u201d; and (2) the Court \u201ccan\n\ndetermine which facts support which claims\u201d and whether Plaintiffs have \u201cstated any\n\nclaims upon which relief can be granted.\u201d Cummings v. Direct Scaffold Supply, LLC, No.\n\nCIV-25-01460-JD, 2025 WL 3527405, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 9, 2025); see also Mann v.\n\nBoatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that \u201cRule 8 serves the\n\nimportant purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to inform\n\nthe defendants of the legal claims being asserted.\u201d)\n\n       As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is entitled to a liberal construction of his Complaint.\n\nSee Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, a pro se litigant must\n\n\u201cfollow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.\u201d Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d\n\n1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).\n\nIII.   Discussion\n\n       A.     The Second Amended Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 8\n\n       Despite the liberal construction given to a pro se litigant\u2019s pleading, Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nComplaint is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading requirements. Defendant AIPAC\n\nargues that \u201cPlaintiff does not number his paragraphs, making answering the complaint\n\nparagraph by paragraph incredibly difficult.\u201d Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66]\n\nat 12. The Court agrees. Further, Defendants AIPAC and X Corporation point to the\n\nCourt\u2019s previous Order in which Plaintiff was advised of similar deficiencies in his first\n\n\n                                              4\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP           Document 94     Filed 05/29/26     Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\ncomplaint. See Order [Doc. No. 14] (\u201c[The complaint] contains unnumbered, single-\n\nspaced paragraphs, and it fails to state, in short and plain terms, a claim against each of the\n\n65-plus defendants showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.\u201d); See also Def. AIPAC\u2019s\n\nMot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66] at 28; Def. X Corp\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 68] at 16.\n\nPlaintiff has failed to adequately amend the Second Amended Complaint, despite an\n\nopportunity from the Court to do so. Like the first complaint, the unnumbered paragraphs\n\nin the Second Amended Complaint fail to state, in short and plain terms, a claim against\n\neach of the Defendants in this case.\n\n       Critically, as brought up in the pending Motions to Dismiss, it is not clear from the\n\nComplaint as to the specific actions taken by any specific Defendant or what particular\n\nclaims have been asserted against them. See Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66]\n\nat 13-14; Def. X Corp\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 68] at 17; See Def. Donald J Trump and\n\nU.S. Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 87] at 8. In the\n\nsection titled \u201cFactual Allegations\u201d, Plaintiff lumps together all Defendants, failing to\n\nattribute any purported actions to a specific Defendant. In the Section titled \u201cPattern of\n\nRacketeering\u201d, Plaintiff lists nine counts of alleged violations, asserting claims against the\n\ndefendants collectively, in one conclusory sentence per count. See e.g. [Doc. No. 15] at 10\n\n(Under Count II, stating \u201cDefendants knowingly agreed to facilitate the enterprise\u2019s\n\nobjectives and committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.\u201d) It is not clear what facts\n\nrelate to each count and to each Defendant, as well as which Defendants are implicated in\n\na particular count. Moreover, Plaintiff lists multiple causes of action under a single count.\n\nSee e.g. id. at 10 (asserting five causes of action under \u201cCount IV \u2013 Plagiarism,\n\n                                              5\n\f       Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 94        Filed 05/29/26      Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\nMisappropriation & Digital Weaponization.\u201d) Again, no Defendant is put on notice as to\n\nthe specific causes of action that are asserted against them.2\n\n       Plaintiff also submitted an additional 258 pages of exhibits, [Doc. No. 45], more\n\nthan two months after filing his Second Amended Complaint. Defendant AIPAC argues\n\nthat the exhibits \u201cread as a rambling manifesto of Plaintiff\u2019s stream of consciousness,\n\nmaking Plaintiff\u2019s SAC even more unintelligible, vague, confusing, and prolix.\u201d Def.\n\nAIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 66] at 13. The Court agrees. Even if the Court were\n\nto consider the exhibits as part of Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, the \u201csheer\n\nlength\u201d of the pleading makes his claims \u201cunintelligible.\u201d3 Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148\n\n(affirming dismissal of 99-page complaint because \u201c[i]n its sheer length, [plaintiff] has\n\nmade her complaint unintelligible \u2018by scattering and concealing in a morass of\n\nirrelevancies the few allegations that matter\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)); see also Schupper v.\n\nEdie, 193 F. App'x 744, 745-46 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of 38-page complaint\n\nplus 120 pages of exhibits as \u201coverly long\u201d and \u201cprolix\u201d.) The exhibits are not clearly\n\n\n\n\n2\n  To the extent Plaintiff raises a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)\nclaim, \u201cpredicate acts of fraud. . .must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P.\n9(b).\u201d Ad-X Int'l, Inc. v. Kolbjornsen, 97 F. App'x 263, 265 (10th Cir. 2004). The Court need not\nreach the issue of whether Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint satisfies Rule 9\u2019s heightened pleading standard\nsince it fails to meet Rule 8\u2019s more general notice pleading, typically required of all litigants.\n3\n  Plaintiff\u2019s filing of Supplemental Exhibits to the Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 45], is\nin violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Federal Rule 15(a)(1), a \u201cparty may\namend its pleading once as a matter of course.\u201d See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). \u201cIn all other cases, a\nparty may amend its pleading only with the opposing party\u2019s written consent or the court\u2019s leave.\u201d\nSee Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend the operative complaint with\nthe Supplemental Exhibits. Further, he has already amended his pleading \u201conce as a matter of\ncourse.\u201d\n                                                 6\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP         Document 94      Filed 05/29/26     Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\nlabeled and do not give the Court any indication of how they relate to the individual\n\nDefendants or to specific claims raised in the Complaint.\n\n       Plaintiff filed responses to the Motions to Dismiss but fails to explain any of the\n\nRule 8 deficiencies identified by Defendants. In all three responses to the Motions to\n\nDismiss, Plaintiff states that \u201cRule 8 requires only a short and plain statement showing\n\nentitlement to relief\u201d and not proof of any \u201cevidentiary\u201d matter. See Resp. to Def. AIPAC\u2019s\n\nMot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 77] at 4; Resp. to Def. X Corp.\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 73]\n\nat 4; Resp. to Def. Donald J Trump and Department of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to\n\nDismiss [Doc. No. 88] at 8. Plaintiff also states, in a conclusory fashion, that the complaint\n\n\u201cidentifies the defendants, describes the alleged enterprise, explains the coordinated\n\nconduct, and identifies the resulting harm to Plaintiff\u2019s investigative and professional\n\nactivities.\u201d Resp. to Def. AIPAC\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 77] at 4; see Resp. to Def.\n\nX Corp.\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 73] at 4; Resp. to Def. Donald J Trump and\n\nDepartment of Government Efficiency\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 88] at 8. Neither of\n\nthese statements explain how individual Defendants are apprised of the specific actions\n\ntaken by them or the particular claims asserted against them.\n\n       Upon reviewing the Complaint and supplemental exhibits, the Court concludes that\n\n\u201cnot even the most attentive of readers could figure out who did what to whom.\u201d Mann,\n\n477 F.3d at 1148. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the Complaint is proper as to\n\nall Defendants. See, e.g., McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 F. App\u2019x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014)\n\n(\u201cIt is not the role of either the court or the defendant to sort through a lengthy, poorly\n\n\n\n                                              7\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 94       Filed 05/29/26     Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\ndrafted complaint and voluminous exhibits in order to construct plaintiff\u2019s causes of\n\naction.\u201d)\n\n       The Court notes that Defendants Andreessen Horowitz and BAYC LLC also filed\n\nMotions to Dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. Nos. 59, 61], but on\n\nnon-Rule 8 grounds. Further, Defendants Elon Musk and United Arab Emirates are yet to\n\nbe served and have not filed any motions in this case.4 However, the Court sua sponte\n\nraises the Rule 8 issue as to these Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Rodriguez\n\nv. Nationwide Homes, Inc., 756 F. App\u2019x 782, 785 (10th Cir. 2018) (\u201cIf a complaint fails to\n\nmeet these basic pleading requirements, a district court may dismiss the action sua sponte\n\nfor failure to comply with Rule 8.\u201d); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents,\n\n492 F.3d 1158, 1161 and n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007) (\u201cAnd, to be sure, a failure to satisfy Rule 8\n\ncan supply a basis for dismissal: Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a district court to\n\ndismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\nProcedure.\u201d) The Court finds that its Rule 8 analysis applies to all Defendants and\n\naccordingly dismisses the Second Amended Complaint on such grounds. The Court will\n\ntherefore deny Defendants Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss\n\nas moot.\n\n\n\n\n4\n  The Court previously issued an Order granting Plaintiff an additional sixty days to effectuate\nservice on Defendant Musk. See Order [Doc. No. 89]. Regardless of the status of service on\nDefendant Musk, the Court, having reviewed the operative Second Complaint, finds dismissal of\nthe action is warranted.\n                                               8\n\f      Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP          Document 94     Filed 05/29/26     Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\n       B.     Leave to Amend\n\n       The Court finds Plaintiff should not be granted further leave to amend. The Court\n\nrecognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings are held to a less\n\nstringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. But Plaintiff\u2019s pro se status does not\n\nexcuse him from \u201cfollow[ing] the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.\u201d\n\nNielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Fleming v. Coulter, 573 F.\n\nApp\u2019x 765, 769 (10th Cir. 2014) (\u201cComplaints drafted by pro se litigants . . . are not\n\ninsulated from the rule that dismissal with prejudice is proper for failure to state a claim\n\nwhen \u2018it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would\n\nbe futile to give him an opportunity to amend.\u2019\u201d (quoting Perkins v. Kan. Dep\u2019t of Corr.,\n\n165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999)).\n\n       If the Court were to grant leave to amend, this would be Plaintiff\u2019s fifth attempt to\n\ncraft a plausible pleading. See Compl. [Doc. No. 1]; Stricken Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 13];\n\nSecond Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 15]; Stricken Third Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 16]. In the\n\nCourt\u2019s Orders striking Plaintiff\u2019s Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint,\n\nPlaintiff was informed that failure to comply with the Federal and Local Rules would result\n\nin the dismissal of this action. See Order [Doc. Nos. 14, 17]. The Court finds further leave\n\nto amend is not warranted under the circumstances of this case. Bradley v. Val-Mejias, 379\n\nF.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (\u201cAlthough Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend\n\nshall be given freely, the district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would\n\nbe futile.\u201d); see Bauchman for Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 562\n\n\n\n                                              9\n\f        Case 5:25-cv-01312-SLP      Document 94     Filed 05/29/26    Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n(10th Cir. 1997) (\u201cA court properly may deny a motion for leave to amend as futile when\n\nthe proposed amended complaint would be subject to dismissal for any reason. . .\u201d)\n\nIV.      Conclusion\n\n         For the reasons set forth, the Second Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule\n\n8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, leave to amend would be futile.\n\n         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:\n\n         1.    Defendants AIPAC\u2019s, X Corporation\u2019s, Donald J Trump\u2019s, and Department\n\nof Government Efficiency\u2019s Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 66, 68, 87] are GRANTED in\n\npart.\n\n         2.    Defendants Andreessen Horowitz\u2019s and BAYC LLC\u2019s Motions to Dismiss\n\nare DENIED as MOOT.\n\n         3.    This action is sua sponte DISMISSED as to Defendants Andreessen\n\nHorowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emirates.\n\n         4.    Plaintiff\u2019s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 15] is DISMISSED\n\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Rule 8.\n\n         A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this\n\nOrder.\n\n         IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n                                             10\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-01T04:01:56.950481-07:00","document_number":"94","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906736290","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-29T15:22:36.072057-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T11:05:13.987387-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-29","time_filed":"17:07:46","entry_number":94,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":403,"description":" CORRECTED ORDER  (corrected to include judge's signature). 1)  66 ,  68 ,  87  Defendants AIPAC's, X Corporation's, Donald J Trump's, and Department of Government Efficiency's Motions to Dismiss  are GRANTED in part. 2)  59 ,  61  Defendants Andreessen Horowitz's and BAYC LLC's Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. 3) This action is sua sponte DISMISSED as to Defendants Andreessen Horowitz, BAYC LLC, Elon Musk, and United Arab Emir ates. 4)  15  Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Rule 8. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order.  Signed by Chief Judge Scott L. Palk on 5/29/2026. (llg)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465547406/","id":465547406,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480754319/","id":480754319,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-28T15:24:18.026270-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T15:24:18.031244-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Docket Annotation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-28T15:24:18.012989-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T15:24:18.013000-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-28","time_filed":"16:27:03","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465152761/","id":465152761,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480349969/","id":480349969,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/91/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-26T08:21:04.377197-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T08:21:04.386210-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"91","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906729703","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Issued","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480475870/","id":480475870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/91/1/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-26T21:35:55.184047-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-27T15:41:12.003391-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":24,"file_size":930275,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"91","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"14906729732","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Attachment 1 - Service Documents","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T08:21:04.347592-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T08:21:04.354853-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-26","time_filed":"09:56:49","entry_number":91,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":383,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464595457/","id":464595457,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479774179/","id":479774179,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/90/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-19T14:24:30.718893-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-19T14:24:30.730508-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"90","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906724198","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-19T14:24:30.683553-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-19T14:24:30.692595-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-19","time_filed":"15:41:04","entry_number":90,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":379,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463809402/","id":463809402,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478966456/","id":478966456,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/89/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-12T13:23:39.591730-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T13:23:39.612232-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"89","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906716252","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-12T13:23:39.563919-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T13:23:39.571894-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-12","time_filed":"14:25:21","entry_number":89,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":374,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463783485/","id":463783485,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478940126/","id":478940126,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/88/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-05-12T11:23:53.919253-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T11:23:53.934774-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"88","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906716077","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-12T11:23:53.891196-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-12T11:23:53.899082-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-12","time_filed":"13:13:57","entry_number":88,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":371,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461582331/","id":461582331,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476677098/","id":476677098,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/87/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-04-22T09:17:45.025479-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T09:17:45.032420-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"87","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906692486","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T09:17:44.996623-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T09:17:45.006063-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"11:00:05","entry_number":87,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":369,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460111362/","id":460111362,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475159923/","id":475159923,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/86/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-04-08T12:22:41.467801-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-08T12:22:41.475463-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"86","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906677111","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Returned Executed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-08T12:22:41.443493-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-08T12:22:41.449837-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-08","time_filed":"14:02:02","entry_number":86,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":367,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458434426/","id":458434426,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473438630/","id":473438630,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/85/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-25T02:17:20.808405-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-25T02:17:20.827886-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"85","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906659323","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Entry of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-25T02:17:20.769186-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-25T02:17:20.777960-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-25","time_filed":"03:40:02","entry_number":85,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":359,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458173136/","id":458173136,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473170244/","id":473170244,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/84/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-23T08:19:27.149289-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T08:19:27.208901-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"84","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906656220","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-23T08:19:27.122830-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T08:19:27.128865-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-23","time_filed":"09:43:51","entry_number":84,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":353,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458017847/","id":458017847,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473010866/","id":473010866,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/83/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-20T13:20:42.813920-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T13:20:42.822011-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"83","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906655582","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T13:20:42.785618-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T13:20:42.791059-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-20","time_filed":"14:26:05","entry_number":83,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":351,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458004225/","id":458004225,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472997136/","id":472997136,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/82/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-20T12:22:55.443112-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T12:22:55.466668-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"82","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906655542","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice (ONE motion per attorney)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T12:22:55.412006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T12:22:55.419352-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-20","time_filed":"14:03:12","entry_number":82,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":349,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457899632/","id":457899632,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472890476/","id":472890476,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/80/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.821113-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.827076-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"80","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906654734","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Entry of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.781030-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.803212-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-19","time_filed":"16:59:46","entry_number":80,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":343,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457899626/","id":457899626,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472890471/","id":472890471,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/81/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.431546-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.437652-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"81","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906654737","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Extension of Time","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.380888-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T15:23:04.394242-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-19","time_filed":"17:01:00","entry_number":81,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":347,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457641465/","id":457641465,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472628639/","id":472628639,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/79/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-18T10:23:57.946946-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-18T10:23:57.965662-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"79","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906652634","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-18T10:23:57.919106-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-18T10:23:57.926186-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-18","time_filed":"11:44:20","entry_number":79,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":340,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457494986/","id":457494986,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472480016/","id":472480016,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/78/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-17T13:22:54.007486-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-17T13:22:54.042691-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"78","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906651568","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T13:22:53.922666-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-17T13:22:53.986066-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"15:16:55","entry_number":78,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":337,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457477892/","id":457477892,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71878124/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472462706/","id":472462706,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71878124/77/patrzalek-v-finance-cartel-the/","date_created":"2026-03-17T12:19:43.673961-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-17T12:19:43.681855-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"77","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"14906651164","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T12:19:43.646177-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-17T12:19:43.652254-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"14:08:38","entry_number":77,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":334,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71878124&page_size=40"}