The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint, see Dkt. No. 11, that she filed in accordance with this Court's July 19, 2006 Memorandum-Decision and Order, see Dkt. No. 8. In that Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court noted that
[a]ttached to Plaintiff's complaint is a letter, dated March 21, 2006, that details the determination of her former employer's Claims Review Committee denying her request for a Disability Pension and advising her that, because the Committee had denied her request, she had a right to bring a civil action under "section 502(a) of ERISA."
See Dkt. No. 8 at 2 (footnote omitted).*fn1
After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint in light of the requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concluded "that Plaintiff [had] not set forth 'a short and plain statement of the claim' showing that she [was] entitled to relief. Plaintiff's complaint does not allege what Defendant did, how Defendant's actions harmed her, or when and where these events occurred." See id. at 4. Nonetheless, because of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint to avoid dismissal of the action. See id.
The Court advised Plaintiff, however, that
[a]ny such amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace in its entirety the previous complaint that Plaintiff filed, must contain a caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual and/or entity that Plaintiff is suing in the present lawsuit and must bear the case number assigned to this action. In addition, the body of Plaintiff's amended complaint must contain sequentially numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph and shall state the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims.
On September 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed her amended complaint in compliance with the Court's July 19, 2006 Memorandum-Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 11. In addition, on September 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed six packets of documents in support of her amended complaint. The Court has reviewed the amended complaint and these supporting documents and, for the following reasons, concludes that they do not comply with the requirements set forth in this Court's July 19, 2006 Memorandum-Decision and Order.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is comprised of eighty pages of letters, notes, medical records, and miscellaneous documents. Many of these documents address events that occurred well outside the three-year statute of limitations. Moreover, nowhere in this compilation is there a complaint that sets forth the factual allegations supporting a claim that Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's disability pension in March 2006 was wrongful.
In addition, the six packets of documents that Plaintiff filed on September 21, 2006, are not helpful. Attached to each of these sets of documents are cover sheets setting forth allegations and arguments that each set of documents allegedly support. However, as with the documents that Plaintiff filed as her amended complaint, the allegations and events referenced in a majority of these documents relate to events that occurred well outside the three-year statute-of-limitations period and, in their totality, do not set forth a claim for relief relating to Defendant's alleged wrongful denial of Plaintiff's application for a disability pension.*fn2
Since none of the documents that Plaintiff has submitted as her amended complaint or in support of that amended pleading state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief, the Court must ...