(PC) Hammler v. Kernan et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Reconsideration, DENYING Motion to be Exempt Form the Twenty-Five Page Limit, and Granting Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/20/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et.al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

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

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00497-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, DENYING MOTION TO
BE EXEMPT FROM THE TWENTY-FIVE PAGE
LIMIT, AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 26]

Plaintiff Allen Hammler 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 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 5,

21

2019, order striking his first amended complaint, motion to be exempt from the twenty-five page

22

limitation, and request for extension of time to file a first amended complaint, filed August 16, 2019.

23

On May 5, 2019, an order issued finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable

24

claim. (ECF No. 18.) The screening order granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint

25

and provided that the amended complaint was not to exceed twenty-five pages in length. (Id. at 5.) On

26

June 12, 2019, and July 17, 2019, Plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension of time to file his amended

27

complaint. (ECF Nos. 21, 23.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 24, 2019. (ECF No.

28

24.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was 55 pages, including five pages of exhibits in excess of the
1

1

25- page limit established by the Court’s screening order of May 5, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) Accordingly,

2

on August 5, 2019, an order issued striking the first amended complaint because it violated the Court’s

3

May 8, 2019 order, and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a first amended complaint not to exceed

4

the 25-page limit. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s August 5, 2019 order. Plaintiff

5

contends that he intended but neglected to file a request to exceed the page limit at the time the first

6

amended complaint, and he is not able to plead his case in twenty-five pages because “the facts are of a

7

significant length.” (ECF No. 26 at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

8

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

9

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.

10

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

11

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

12

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986).

13

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), referred to as the catch-all provision, the

14

Court may, upon motion, relieve a party from a final order or judgment. As the moving party, Plaintiff

15

Amust demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from

16

proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.@ Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008)

17

(internal quotations and citation omitted). The ARule is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

18

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a

19

party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.@ Id. (internal quotations

20

and citation omitted).

21

Plaintiff fails to provide a valid basis for exceeding the 25-page limit, and the Court finds that

22

25 pages is sufficient to present his first amended complaint for the reasons set forth in the Court’s May

23

5, 2019, screening order. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s August 5, 2019 order is

24

insufficient to warrant reconsideration.

25

Defendants Scott Kernan and M. Simas only, and raised a due process and failure to protect claim.

26

However, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was 55 pages, named over twenty Defendants, and

27

presented fourteen separate claims. However, as stated in the Court’s May 5, 2019 screening order, in

28

filing an amended complaint, no further claims or defendants may be added to the amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s original complaint was eleven pages, named

2

1

Plaintiff is further advised that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

2

showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple,

3

concise, and direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1). A party must state its claims or defenses

4

in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Federal

5

Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).

6

In addition, a basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil

7

Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same

8

defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a

9

lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions”

10

and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated

11

claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507

12

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only intended to avoid confusion that arises out of bloated

13

lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent

14

prisoners from circumventing the three strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1915(g). The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his first amended complaint must

16

be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a single claim against a single defendant.

17

Plaintiff may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same defendant under Rule

18

18. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff may also add any additional claims against other defendants if those

19

claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as his original claim. Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Any attempt to join claims that are not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure will result in those claims being dismissed as improperly joined. Plaintiff should carefully

22

consider these rules in drafting and filing his first amended complaint.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 5, 2019 order is denied;

3

2.

Plaintiff’s request to be exempt from the 25-page limit is denied; and

4

3.

Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a first amended

5

complaint that complies with the Court’s May 8, 2019 screening order and does not

6

exceed 25 pages.

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 20, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4