Price v. Mabus

Filing 8

SCREENING ORDER re Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/17/16. Third Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

EDWARD PRICE,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Defendant.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM
SCREENING ORDER RE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

SCREENING ORDER

18

Plaintiff Edward Price (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

action. On September 2, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with

20

leave to amend within thirty (30) days. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter with the

21

Court, which included a decision issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

22

Commission on September 1, 2016. (Doc. 6). On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a right to

23

sue letter issued by the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing on September 20,

24

2016. (Doc. 7). The Court construes these documents as Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

25

Screening Requirement

26

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is

28

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks
1

1

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

28 U.S.C. §

3

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

4

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

5

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

6

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

7

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65

8

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge

9

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

10

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any

12

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012),

13

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims

14

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to

15

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S.

16

at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572

17

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not

18

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.

19

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

20

DISCUSSION

21

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which is comprised of a letter, a decision by the

22

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and a right to sue letter from the

23

California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) fails to comply with Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given one final

25

opportunity to amend his complaint. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the following the

26

standards:

27
28

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and
2

1

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

2

As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

3

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,

4

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as

5

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are

7

not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

8

Plaintiff’s filing of EEOC and DFEH documents is not sufficient to satisfy the pleading

9

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Court will not scour the EEOC decision

10

to determine Plaintiff’s claims and allegations in this action.

11

complaint, Plaintiff must prepare a separate complaint that includes the relevant factual

12

allegations and asserted causes of action.

13

If Plaintiff elects to amend his

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 outlines the form of pleadings required in federal

15

court. In particular, Rule 10 requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered

16

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

10(b). Additionally, if doing so would promote clarity, “each claim founded on a separate

18

transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense.” Id.

19

Here, Plaintiff’s letter and documents from the EEOC and DFEH are not sufficient to

20

satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. If Plaintiff elects to

21

amend his complaint, he must prepare a complaint that includes separate numbered paragraphs

22

limited to a single set of circumstances and he must separate claims founded on separate

23

transactions or occurrences.

24

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

25

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 8 and 10. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will provide him with one final

27

opportunity to amend his complaint.

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

28
3

1

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

2

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

3

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what

4

the named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-

5

79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49.

6

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

7

(citations omitted).

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be

8

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

9

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

10

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

11

pleading.” Local Rule 220.

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

14
15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10;
2.

16
17

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
third amended complaint; and

3.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order,

18

the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim

19

and to obey a court order.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 17, 2016

23

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4