Furnace v. Junious et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01671-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMIT FOR AMENDED
COMPLAINT

13
M. JUNIOUS, et al.,
14
15

(ECF No. 8)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has declined Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5).

20
21

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No.

22

9). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a court order instructing the prison librarian

23

to permit him to file an amended complaint that exceeds the 50-page limit set forth in

24
25

Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15 § 3162(c). (ECF No. 8).
The Court will deny this Motion for the following reasons. First, the prison librarian

26
27
28

is not a party to this action. The Court cannot compel a non-party to do or refrain from
particular actions. Second, even if the librarian were a party, the Court would have no

1

basis for ordering preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has yet to file a cognizable claim.

2

It thus cannot be said that he has shown “a strong likelihood of success on the merits”, a

3

prerequisite to injunctive relief. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 938 (9th

4
Cir. 2001). Third, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3162(c) provides that the appropriate means
5
6
7

for an inmate to copy more than 50 pages is to “provide to designated staff a written
explanation of the need for excess document length,” not to obtain a court order.

8

In addition, the Court reminds Plaintiff of the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to be “a short and plain statement of the claim

10
11

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff must set forth his claims in a clear,
succinct, and straightforward manner. It is the very rare case that requires more than 10

12
13
14
15

pages to do that; additional pages likely would confuse, not clarify.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to exceed
CDCR’s fifty-page copy limit (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

May 11, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2