Mize v. Beard et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/14/16 denying 22 Motion to Amend the Complaint without prejudice to plaintiff initiating a new action against defendants Saipher and Horowitz. Plaintiff's third amended complaint 23 is stricken. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS WAYNE MIZE, SR.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1558 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of his civil

18

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff

19

indicates he wants to add claims against two additional defendants: Saipher and Horowitz.

20

The court has reviewed the proposed third amended complaint pursuant to the court’s

21

obligation to screen pleadings filed by prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court finds that

22

the third amended complaint it is too long in violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure which requires that pleadings be “concise and direct.” The body of plaintiff’s second

24

amended complaint is already too long at 35 pages. The body of the third amended complaint is

25

62 pages despite plaintiff’s insistence that the purpose of plaintiff’s third amended complaint is to

26

add defendants whose actions “mirror” the actions of the other defendants. Much of the

27

information provided in the third amended complaint is irrelevant or marginally relevant

28

background information.

Also, plaintiff’s claims against Saipher and Horowitz are more properly brought in a

1
2

separate action. It appears plaintiff’s claims against Saipher and Horowitz are based upon events

3

which occurred after this action was commenced. While the claims against Saipher and Horowitz

4

concern the denial of medical care as do plaintiff’s claims against the current defendants, the

5

claims are not otherwise materially related. If plaintiff’s claims against Saipher and Horowitz

6

were to proceed to trial, the evidence presented would be mostly different than the evidence

7

presented with respect to the current defendants.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 22) is denied

10

without prejudice to plaintiff initiating a new action against defendants Saipher and Horowitz;

11

and

12
13

2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 23) is stricken.
Dated: March 14, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19

1/md;
mize1558.lta

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2