Long v. USA et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Plantiff's Second 16 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/18/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN MICHAEL LONG,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01228-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
(Doc. 16)

16
17

Plaintiff, Kevin Michael Long, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a prisoner civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff initiated this matter on August 7, 2013

19

and consented to the jurisdiction of U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Id. at 5; Doc. 6.) As required by 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court previously screened the Complaint and dismissed the action without leave

21

to amend as frivolous and closed the case -- which Plaintiff appealed. (Docs. 4, 7.) The Ninth Circuit

22

ordered that decision vacated and, noting a substantial question regarding Plaintiff's competency to

23

proceed pro se, remanded for further proceedings consistent with Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119,

24

1121 (9th Cir. 1989). (Doc. 11.) This action was reopened on December 16, 2013.

25

On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion to File Amended Complaint in

26

C/O Arnold Swarrzznneggerrs [sic] Union Governorship [sic] of California" (Doc. 12) which was

27

construed as a motion to amend the Complaint and denied on January 16, 2014 (Doc. 13). On that

28

same date, Plaintiff's second motion to amend the Complaint was entered on the docket, though
1

1

received the day before. (Doc. 16.) This second motion to amend the Complaint is likewise denied

2

for the same reasons.
"Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires.'"

3
4

AmericsourceBerquen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); ref Bowles v.

5

Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.1999). "But a district court need not grant leave to amend where

6

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue

7

delay in litigation; or (4) is futile." Id. ref Bowles, at 758; Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385,

8

1387 (9th Cir.1990). The latter of these exceptions is applicable in this case.
As noted in the first screening order in this case, Plaintiff's allegations in this action are

9
10

frivolous, fanciful, and incoherent. His second motion to amend the Complaint is no different. The

11

caption on Plaintiff's motion is "*Arnold Swarreenegger my Power of Attorney Holder *Kevin

12

Michael Long 1st King of Israel, Last, fs. USA et al." Plaintiff entitled his motion, "MOTION TO

13

AMEND COMPLAINT FOR REVOLUTION 1-1-2014 WITH CATIE CONDITT GOVERNORS

14

OFFICE OF CALIFORNIA SECRETARY UNION WITH MYSELF AND ARNOLD

15

SWARRZZNEGGGRS OUR CHURCH STATE FAMILY FRIENDS UNIT . . OF USA . . . .

16

GOVERNORSHIP WWW.ARM.GOV POLITICAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WORLD WIDE

17

ASSISTANCE OF "RECON CONCEPTIONS" BUSINESS PLANNERS OF AMERICA MY OWN

18

BUSINESS OWNERSHIP"1 which he concluded by marking an "X" and signing on a line. The first

19

several lines in this motion state, "1-7-2014 AMEND TO CASE # 5214780 IN CALIFORNIA

20

SUPREME COURT IN CENNECTION WITH CASE # 9TH CIRCUIT 13-16720 ORIGINATING

21

CASE # 1:13-CV-01228-JLT KEVIN LONG VS USA ET AL. I ALSO SUPEONA USA. SUPREME

22

COURT JUDGES FROM WASHINGTON D.C. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYERS

23

UNION PERSONEL DIVISIONS RIGHT NOW TO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAYUKE

24

NUKE DUKEVER. HA HA SAIS ARNOLD SWARRZ THE NEGGERS UNION WITH ME BODY

25

BUILDER MOVIE SUPERSTAR PERSONNEL ALL AROUND THE WORLD. HALELUJAH TO

26

US. GODS ASSEMPLY IN HONOR OF CHINA RETORATION OF CITIZENSHIP IN AMERICA

27
28

1

This is a verbatim quote of the caption. The misspellings, underlining, internal quotation marks, and use of ellipses are
Plaintiff's.

2

1

WITH ARNOLD GOVERNORS ASSEMPLY UNION OF CDCR TOUGHTEST BEAT IN THIS

2

STATE I ARREATED LEGALLY 2012 FOR TODAYS UNITY MISSION STATEMENT OF

3

STATE EXPO PROPERTIES SACRAMENTO OF WHICH ARNOLD AND I MY FATHER GOD

4

IN HEAVEN IS LORD."2 Plaintiff's second motion to amend the Complaint is as incomprehensible

5

as his first and also contains neither any discussion of why amendment should be allowed, nor promise

6

of coherence in an amended complaint if his motion were granted. Justice does not require granting

7

leave to amend in this case as to do so would be futile.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion to amend the Complaint, filed on January 15, 2014

8
9

(Doc. 16), is HEREBY DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

March 18, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

No effort has been made to identify errors in the sentence structure and spelling as to do so is nearly impossible given its
rambling nature.

3