Blair v. CDCR et al

Filing 61

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT for Failure to Comply With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/23/2017. Fourth Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY C. BLAIR, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01156-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 [ECF No. 56] Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed September 28, 2016. (ECF No. 56.) 21 I. 22 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 This action is proceeding against Defendants Johnson, Ybarra, Alva, Chan, O’Daniels, Franco, 24 Sanchez, Esqueda, Santos and John Doe (Assistant Warden) for cruel and unusual punishment in 25 violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant John Does # 3, 4, 5, and 6, for deliberate 26 indifference to a serious medical need, and against Defendants Santos, Esqueda, and Ybarra for due 27 process violations. 28 1 1 On February 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a 2 cognizable claim for relief and a separate motion to sever claims. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) Plaintiff filed 3 an opposition on June 2, 2016, and Defendants filed a reply on June 9, 2016. (ECF Nos. 43-46.) On July 15, 2016, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending to 4 5 grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, deny, without prejudice, Defendants’ 6 motion to sever claims, and to grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend and/or supplement the second 7 amended complaint to cure the Rule 20 defect only. (ECF No. 52.) 8 The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on September 28, 2016, and 9 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint attached to his objections to the Findings and Recommendations 10 was ordered to be filed. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) 11 II. 12 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 13 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 14 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 15 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 16 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 17 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 18 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 19 entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 20 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 21 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 22 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 23 participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 24 2002). 25 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 26 construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 27 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, 28 which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 2 1 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 2 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 3 sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying 4 the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 5 III. 6 DISCUSSION 7 A. 8 Plaintiff’s April 8, 2016, second amended complaint is 64 pages long and includes 261 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) paragraphs of long and rambling allegations relating to several different claims against multiple 10 Defendants.1 As noted above, the second amended complaint stated a claim for relief against 11 Defendants Johnson, Ybarra, Alva, Chan, O’Daniels, Franco, Sanchez, Esqueda, Santos and John Doe 12 (Assistant Warden) for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against 13 Defendant John Does # 3, 4, 5, and 6, for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and against 14 Defendants Santos, Esqueda, and Ybarra for due process violations. Plaintiff was granted leave only 15 to cure the defects relating to the Rule 20 violation. In addition, Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive 16 relief and official capacity claims for monetary damages were dismissed from the action. (ECF No. 17 52, Plaintiff has been previously advised that a complaint must contain “a short and plain 18 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 20 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 21 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 22 678 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff 23 must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. 24 Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). While “plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of 25 pleading facts . . .,” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se 26 prisoners are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 27 1 28 Plaintiff’s original complaint was 61 pages, with 257 pages of exhibits (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was 30 pages (ECF No. 9), and Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was 35 pages (ECF No. 14). 3 1 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 As Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s November 7, 2014, screening order, “[w]here the 3 factual elements of a cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are 4 not organized into a short, plain statement of the claim, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 if proper. 5 See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining complaint should set forth 6 who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to provide notice to 7 defendants). The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s 8 claims.” (ECF No. 8, Order at 3:3-8.) 9 In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 10 describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted 11 under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff 12 must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by Plaintiff. 13 Plaintiff does not need to prove his case at this stage of the litigation. The court is only determining 14 whether Plaintiff states a colorable claim. Legal argument and evidence are not required at this stage 15 of the litigation. Plaintiff is advised that a short and simple statement of his claim will speed the 16 screening of his case, and will help the litigation proceed in a more efficient manner. Finally, as 17 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must comply with Rule 18(a) and 20, the Court finds that twenty-five 18 pages is sufficient for Plaintiff to raise his claims in this action. Accordingly, if Plaintiff chooses to 19 amend the complaint, the amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and it will 20 be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation. 21 IV. 22 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 23 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 24 In the order granting Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff’s 25 second amended complaint presented unrelated claims and Plaintiff was granted leave to attempt to 26 cure the Rule 20 violation, if he can do so. An amended complaint may only re-allege the violations 27 presented in the second amended complaint, and address the deficiency regarding the Rule 20 28 violation. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is in violation of Rule 8’s requirement that Plaintiff set 4 1 forth a short and plain statement of his claim and must be dismissed. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank amended civil rights complaint form; 4 2. 5 The September 28, 2016, third amended complaint is dismissed for a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2); 6 3. 7 Plaintiff is granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint. The fourth amended complaint is due thirty days from the date of service of this order; 8 4. 9 The fourth amended complaint must be a short, simple and concise statement of Plaintiff’s claim, and may not exceed 25 pages in length; and 10 5. 11 Should Plaintiff fail to file a fourth amended complaint in compliance with 12 this order, the Court will dismiss and/or sever any and all unrelated claims set forth in 13 the second amended complaint. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 February 23, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?