Quinn Bass v. City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department et al

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, re Complaint - (Referred), 1 . (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM, # 2 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL) (dts) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/16/2017) (dts).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
QUINN BASS,

10

Case No. EDCV 17-1080-JVS (KK)
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL WATER
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,

14
15

Defendant(s).

16
17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION
On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff Quinn Bass (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se filed

19
20

a Complaint for violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against

21

defendants City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, Ricardo

22

Gonzalez, Simplicio Gonzalez, and Rosa Gonzalez (“Defendants”). For the

23

reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.1

24
25
26
27
28

On June 22, 2017, defendant City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for (1) failure to state
sufficient facts to support a claim and (2) insufficient service of process. Dkt. 15.
As the Court is dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court denies
Defendant’s motion as moot. See Glair v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-6450-R
(RNB), 2010 WL 1407357, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2010), report and
recommendation adopted, No. CV 09-6450-R (RNB), 2010 WL 1403947 (C.D.
Cal. Apr. 5, 2010), aff’d, 437 F. App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court’s
1

1

II.

2

BACKGROUND

3

On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants. ECF

4

Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. It appears Plaintiff is claiming Defendants violated his

5

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they refused to turn on his water

6

and electricity despite Plaintiff’s claim he provided sufficient proof of possession of

7

property “located at 1715 N. Lugo Ave., San Bernardino, CA 92404.” Id. at 2, 4,

8

6. Because of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff alleges he has no water and “can’t

9

clean, [and] can’t put out fire if needed.” Id. at 2.

10

III.

11

STANDARD OF REVIEW

12

In civil actions where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, Congress

13

requires district courts to dismiss the complaint “at any time” if the court

14

determines the complaint, or any portion thereof: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2)

15

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

16

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also

17

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

18

Even when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a claim sua sponte and without

20

notice “where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv.,

21

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co.,

22

864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (same). The court’s authority in this regard

23

includes sua sponte dismissal of claims against defendants who have not been

24
25
26
27

recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for
failure to state a claim, however, renders defendants’ two motions pertaining to the
insufficiency of service moot.”).

28
2

1

served and defendants who have not yet answered or appeared. See Abagnin v.

2

AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2008).
In applying these standards, “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,

3
4

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

5

Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal

6

quotation marks omitted). However, “a pro se litigant is not excused from

7

knowing the most basic pleading requirements” or “from following court rules.”

8

Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th

9

Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pliler v. Ford,

10

542 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S. Ct. 2441, 159 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2004) (“District judges have

11

no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”).

12

IV.

13

DISCUSSION

14

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE OF

15

CIVIL PROCEDURE 8

16

A.

APPLICABLE LAW

17

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”), a complaint must

18

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to

19

relief,” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ.

20

P. 8(a), (d). “[T]he short and plain statement must provide the defendant with fair

21

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura

22

Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161 L. Ed. 2d 577

23

(2005) (citation omitted). “Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly

24

and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s

25

docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in

26

the court’s ability to administer justice.” Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d

27

837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

28
3

Rule 8 “has been held to be violated by a pleading that was needlessly long,

1
2

or a complaint that was highly repetitious, or confused, or consisted of

3

incomprehensible rambling.” Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d

4

1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also

5

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming the dismissal of a

6

complaint under Rule 8 for being “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy,

7

and largely irrelevant”). A complaint may be dismissed for violating Rule 8 even if

8

“a few possible claims” can be identified and the complaint is not “wholly without

9

merit.” Id. at 1179 (stating Rule 8’s requirements apply “to good claims as well as

10

bad”). See also Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1059 (discussing cases in which the Ninth

11

Circuit affirmed Rule 8 dismissals); Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530

12

F.3d 1124, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2008) (same).

13

B.

14

ANALYSIS
Here, the Complaint is rambling and confusing such that the Court cannot

15

discern Plaintiff’s claims. See Dkt. 1, Compl.; Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1059;

16

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff fails to include basic

17

information such as whether he is suing defendants in their individual or official

18

capacities. As to the substance of the Complaint, Plaintiff does not include any

19

“short and plain statement” of his claims or causes of action. Specifically, Plaintiff

20

fails to identify what actions each defendant took against Plaintiff and how each

21

defendant specifically harmed him. While Plaintiff references violations of his

22

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, he fails to provide any specific facts

23

alleging what actions each defendants took to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional

24

rights. See Dkt. 1 at 2-4. For example, Plaintiff conclusorily claims defendant San

25

Bernardino Water Department is liable “for creating a tort and violating

26

[Plaintiff’s] 14th and 5th Amendment Rights.” Id. at 4. Similarly, Plaintiff simply

27

alleges defendant Ricardo Gonzalez and defendant Simplicio Gonzalez “attempted

28

[a] self help eviction . . . without due process.” Id. Absent specific allegations
4

1

identifying what actions each defendant took against Plaintiff and how such action

2

violated Plaintiff’s rights, the Complaint fails to provide Defendants with fair

3

notice of Plaintiff’s claims or the grounds upon which they rest.

4

Unclear pleadings, such as the Complaint, that “leav[e] it to the Court to

5

figure out what the full array of [Plaintiff’s] claims is and upon what federal law,

6

and upon what facts, each claim is based,” remain subject to dismissal. Little v.

7

Baca, No. CV 13–0373-PA (RZ), 2013 WL 436018, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013).

8

Accordingly, the Complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Rule

9

8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177; see also Clayburn v. Schirmer, No. CIV S-06-

10

2182-ALA (P), 2008 WL 564958, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008) (Alarcón,

11

Circuit J., sitting by designation) (dismissing “long, rambling pleading” under Rule

12

8 and noting “[t]he court (and any defendant) should be able to read and

13

understand Plaintiff’s pleading within minutes”).

14

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff must state each claim

15

separately and identify Defendants for each claim. In addition, for each claim,

16

Plaintiff should clearly, precisely, and briefly identify the legal basis and the facts

17

underlying it. See Bautista, 216 F.3d at 840-41. Plaintiff should only include facts

18

necessary to state a claim and need not include additional exhibits to support his

19

allegations. Instead, Plaintiff should clearly state (1) the alleged harm; (2) who

20

caused the alleged harm; (3) when the alleged harm was committed; and (4) what

21

actions were committed by each alleged wrongdoer.

22

V.

23

LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal. As the

25

Court is unable to determine whether amendment would be futile, leave to amend

26

is granted. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

27

curiam).

28
5

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT within twenty-one (21) days of the
service date of this Order, Plaintiff choose one of the following two options:
1.

Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint to attempt to cure the

4

deficiencies discussed above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a

5

blank Central District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the First

6

Amended Complaint, which the Court encourages Plaintiff to use.

7

If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must clearly

8

designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Complaint,” it

9

must bear the docket number assigned to this case, and it must be retyped or

10

rewritten in its entirety, preferably on the court-approved form. Plaintiff shall not

11

include new defendants or new allegations that are not reasonably related to the

12

claims asserted in the Complaint. In addition, the First Amended Complaint must

13

be complete without reference to the Complaint or any other pleading, attachment,

14

or document.

15

An amended complaint supersedes the preceding complaint. Ferdik v.

16

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). After amendment, the Court will

17

treat all preceding complaints as nonexistent. Id. Because the Court grants

18

Plaintiff leave to amend as to all his claims raised here, any claim raised in a

19

preceding complaint is waived if it is not raised again in the First Amended

20

Complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

21

The Court advises Plaintiff that it generally will not be well-disposed toward

22

another dismissal with leave to amend if Plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint

23

that continues to include claims on which relief cannot be granted. “[A] district

24

court’s discretion over amendments is especially broad ‘where the court has

25

already given a plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint.’”

26

Ismail v. County of Orange, 917 F. Supp.2d 1060, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citations

27

omitted); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. Thus, if Plaintiff files a First

28

Amended Complaint with claims on which relief cannot be granted, the First
6

1

Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend and with

2

prejudice.

3

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a First

4

Amended Complaint will result in this action being dismissed with prejudice

5

for failure to state a claim, prosecute and/or obey Court orders pursuant to

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

7

2.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action without

8

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court

9

is directed to mail Plaintiff a blank Notice of Dismissal Form, which the Court

10

encourages Plaintiff to use.

11
12
13
14

Dated: August 16, 2017
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7