The Appeals Court has affirmed the dismissal a lawsuit filed pro se by a Cambridge medical doctor. In her complaint, the plaintiff describes herself as “a Harvard educated medical doctor” even though this has little relevance to the facts or claims alleged in the pleading.

The doctor appealed from a Land Court judgment dismissing her complaint which challenged the conveyance of a building she lived in since 2012.

The building was owned by an elderly man who the plaintiff describes as “a Harvard Educated physicist.” The plaintiff lived with and cared for the elderly building owner for years. In return, he promised to devise the building to the plaintiff through his will. Instead he transferred the real estate to his son who then sold the property to an investor.

A series of legal proceedings ensued, ultimately ending in the Appeals Court. The court rejected the plaintiff’s lawsuit on a number of grounds, most notably failure to file an adequate complaint. The opinion states,

[plaintiff’s] complaint fails to comply with rule 8 (a)(1), which requires the pleading set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Having carefully reviewed [her] forty-one page complaint, we agree with the judge that the statements therein are neither short nor plain. The most that can be gleaned from it is that [plaintiff] feels mistreated and unappreciated…The sometimes rambling pages detailing her care of [the building owner] are certainly confusing and do not show entitlement to relief as required by rule 8 (a)(1).

Additionally, the court cited “failure to state claim for relief” under Rule 12(b)(6) and “lack of standing” as grounds for dismissal.