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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?