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)
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?