Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services District, et al.

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/1/2016 ORDERING Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with the FRCP within 30 days of the date of service of this order; and Plaintiff's 4 Motion to transfer is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIMBERLY R. OLSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0646-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19

/
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is
plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and a motion to transfer to another judge (Doc. 4).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

20

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

22

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

23

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

24

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

25

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

26

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must
1

1

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter

2

. . . .” Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma

3

pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).

4

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and

5

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

6

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

7

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

8

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

9

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although a pro se

10

litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those

11

pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice

12

of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th

13

Cir. 1995).

14

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain

15

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

16

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” ” Bell Atlantic Corp.

17

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). While “[s]pecific facts are not

18

necessary; the statement [of facts] need . . . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim

19

is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

20

(2007) (internal quotes omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

21

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, see id., and construe the pleading in

22

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

23
24

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff brings this action against several defendants, including the Hornbrook

25

Community Services District (HCSD), the officers and agents of HCSD, legal counsel for

26

HCSD, and water customers of HCSD. Generally, plaintiff alleges HCSD officers and agents are
2

1

not conducting business in a proper manner. Her claims range from violation of right to freedom

2

of speech, to due process and equal protection violations. She also alleges several pendent state

3

law claims.

4

II. DISCUSSION

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. Co.

6

of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have

7

now disapproved any heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule

8

9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

9

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

10

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency,

11

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th cir. 1984). A plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms,

12

simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002)

13

(“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus

14

litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Thus, a plaintiff must not include in the

15

pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping,

16

vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. See

17

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177-78 (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8

18

after warning); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm

19

application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” even in pro se prisoner

20

cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

21

within minutes. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including many

22

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

23

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

24

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

25

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions.

26

///
3

1

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and will be

2

dismissed as such. Plaintiff is no stranger to this court, and should be well aware that “[j]udges

3

in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court is

4

unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters.” Conte v. Jakks

5

Pac., Inc., 981 F.Supp.2d 895, 899 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Plaintiff chose to file an 84-page complaint,

6

consisting of 60 pages of background information and explanation as to who the parties are. She

7

then incorporates all of the background information as the factual support for her individual

8

claims. This method of pleading fails to give the defendants a clear statement about what the

9

defendants allegedly did wrong. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097,

10

1104 (9th Cir. 2008); Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This type of

11

complaint unnecessarily slows the screening of complaints and taxes the resources of the court.

12

Indeed, other judges have limited such pleadings to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages. The

13

undersigned will not set a specific page maximum for any amended complaint plaintiff may file,

14

but plaintiff is cautioned that the court expects any amended complaint to be limited in length.

15

III. REQUEST TO TRANSFER

16

Frustrated with the length of time the court has taken to address plaintiff’s

17

voluminous complaint, she has requested the transfer of this action to another judge. Plaintiff

18

offers no grounds for the removal of the undersigned from this case, such as bias or prejudice

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. To the extent plaintiff was attempting to bring a motion to

20

disqualify the undersigned, the request as filed is insufficient. To be sufficient, such a motion

21

must state facts which, if true, fairly support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from

22

an extrajudicial source and which may prevent a fair decision. See U.S. v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d

23

735, 740-41 (1976). The Supreme Court in Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot

24

constitute the necessary showing of bias or prejudice. See Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22,

25

34 (1922). There are simply no grounds on which to grant plaintiff’s request.

26

///
4

1
2

IV. CONCLUSION
It is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

3

amending the complaint, and plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

4

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

5

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

6

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

7

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

8

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

9

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

10

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be

11

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

12

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms

13

how each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

14

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

15

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff is

16

cautioned, however, that the specificity requirement must be viewed with Rule 8’s requirements

17

of simplicity, directness, and clarity. Even Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for fraud “is

18

not an invitation to disregard Rule 8’s requirement[s].” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

19

(9th Cir. 1996).

20

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

21

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

22

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply

23

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

24

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;
5

1
2
3

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure within 30 days of the date of service of this order; and
3.

Plaintiff’s motion to transfer (Doc. 4) is denied.

4
5
6
7

DATED: June 1, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6