Rodriguez v. State of California et al

Filing 32

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/4/14 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30 ) be dismissed with prejudice; and Defendants motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31 ) be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2688 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to

19

comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.) Before the court is plaintiff’s First

21

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed July 8, 2014. (ECF No. 30.)

22

In screening the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the undersigned finds that it fails

23

to cure the defects of the previous complaint. In his sixty-eight pages of allegations and exhibits,

24

plaintiff names dozens of defendants and a wide range of wrongful acts, including unlawful

25

retaliation, failure to protect, and violation of his rights to due process and equal protection of the

26

law. As a subset of named defendants point out in their recently-filed motion to dismiss:

27
28

Many of the allegations and exhibits seem to refer to unrelated
disputes – some between Plaintiff and other inmates and not
involving any of the Defendants. Many of the allegations are
1

1

redundant. Many of the allegations of wrongdoing identify only
“Defendants,” rather than identifying which particular Defendant
engaged in the alleged wrongdoing. It is difficult in places to sort
out who Plaintiff claims did what. In short, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is prolix and confusing[.] . . . It places an unreasonable
burden on Defendants and on the Court to determine what is being
alleged and what is a proper defense.

2
3
4
5

(ECF No. 31-1 at 5.)

6

Thus the FAC fails to comply with the Rule 8 pleading requirements. As the court

7

concludes that further leave to amend would be futile, it will recommend dismissal of this action

8

with prejudice. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal

9

of complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a court’s order to amend the complaint to

10

comply with Rule 8); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981)

11

(complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 maybe dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule

12

41(b)).

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to
this action.

15

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

16

1. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) be dismissed with prejudice; and

17

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) be denied as moot.

18

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

19

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

20

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

21

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

22

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

23

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

24

(9th Cir. 1991).

25

Dated: August 4, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2 / rodr2688.fac_fr

2