Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 42 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER for Plaintiff to Comply With the Court's Order of June 19, 2014 Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/18/2014. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES A. MILLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 42.)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER OF JUNE 19,
2014 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Charles A. Miller (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action was filed in the Fresno County Superior Court

21

on June 15, 2010, and removed by defendants to the federal court on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.)

22

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2013. (Doc. 35.) On June

23

19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order striking the First Amended Complaint for

24

violation of Rule 8(a), with leave to amend. (Doc. 40.) On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a

25

motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order by the District Judge. (Doc. 42.)

26

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE

27

Local Rule 303 provides that "[a] party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate

28

Judge's ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge . . . specifically designat[ing]
1

1

the ruling, or party thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. This request shall be

2

captioned 'Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling.'"

3

Local Rule 303(c). "The standard that the assigned Judge shall use in all such requests is the

4

'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A)." Local

5

Rule 303(f).

6

Plaintiff’s Motion

7

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s order should be vacated because it ignores

8

the principle of Rule 8(f) which “is said to command courts to never exalt ‘form’ over

9

‘substance by relying on technical pleading irregularities to reject” his amended complaint.

10

(Motion, Doc. 42 at 2:6-8.) Plaintiff contends that his First Amended Complaint should have

11

been accepted as filed, and considered on its substance. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate

12

Judge failed to consider the complexity of his issues when requiring that he limit the First

13

Amended Complaint to twenty-five pages in length, double-spaced. Plaintiff also argues that

14

the First Amended Complaint should not have been stricken for use of single spacing, because

15

the Magistrate Judge did not require double spacing but merely advised Plaintiff that “[i]f

16

Plaintiff chooses to type the amended complaint, he should use double spacing, not single-

17

spacing.” (Motion at 5-6.) Plaintiff argues that his meritorious claims should not have been

18

rejected simply because he failed to satisfy the Magistrate Judge’s preferences.

19

Discussion

20

The court does not find the Magistrate Judge’s order of June 19, 2014 to be clearly

21

erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff relies on Rule 8(f) which no longer exists in the Federal

22

Rules of Civil Procedure. The record supports the Magistrate Judge’s finding in the order that

23

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint violates Rule 8(a) which requires the complaint to contain “a

24

short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).1 Moreover, “[d]istrict courts

25

have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s argument that his lengthy narrative is justified because his claims are unduly complex is
unpersuasive. The First Amended Complaint includes evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies, legal
arguments, and detailed descriptions of each defendant’s background and duties, none which are required.
2

1

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

2

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing

3

complaint for failure to comply with order to amend complaint) (quoting Thompson v. Housing

4

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829, 107 S.Ct. 112, 93 L.Ed.2d

5

60 (1986); accord Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 2010) (district

6

courts have inherent power to strike items from docket as sanction for litigation conduct).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration shall be denied, and Plaintiff is required to

8

comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order within thirty days.

9

III.

CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

Plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration, filed on July 10, 2014, is DENIED; and

12

2.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to
comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order of June 19, 2014; and

13
14

3.

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 18, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3