Lear v. Avila, et al.
Filing
44
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/17/18 ORDERING the amended complaint 38 is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint 37 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel 38 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint used by this court. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants Avila and Christensen's motion to strike 30 be denied as moot; and plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 35 be denied. Motions 30 and 35 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,
11
No. 2:17-cv-0326-JAM-EFB P
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
D. AVILA, et al.,
14
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action
17
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon screening his original complaint, the court found that
18
plaintiff had stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Avila
19
and Christensen for being deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s mobility impairment. ECF No. 19.
20
On December 4, 2017, defendants filed an answer and a motion to strike portions of the
21
complaint. ECF Nos. 29, 30. Then, on December 26, 2017, plaintiff amended his complaint “as
22
a matter of course” pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby mooting
23
defendants’ motion to strike.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B); ECF No. 33. The court must now
24
screen plaintiff’s amended complaint and also address plaintiff’s pending requests for the
25
appointment of counsel and for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. ECF
26
Nos. 35, 38.
27
28
1
Days before, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint. That
request (ECF No. 37) is also moot.
1
1
I. Screening
2
A. Legal Standards
3
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
4
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
5
court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
6
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,”
7
or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
8
9
A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and
10
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
11
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
12
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
13
While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,
14
its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
15
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
16
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked
17
assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
18
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
19
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
20
678.
21
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
22
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
23
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
24
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a
25
claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.
26
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
27
plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
28
/////
2
1
B. Analysis
2
Pursuant to § 1915A, the court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 38)
3
4
and finds that it must be dismissed with leave to amend because it does not comply with Rule 8.
Plaintiff’s claims, as alleged in the prolix twenty-six-page handwritten complaint, are
5
difficult to distill. They are not organized according to the structure of the court’s form complaint
6
for use by prisoners in civil rights actions. Instead of listing each claim and briefly stating the
7
facts that support each claim, plaintiff has provided a needlessly detailed description of events.
8
In a separate section labelled “summary of claims,” plaintiff has listed approximately fifteen
9
“claims” (i.e., “supervisor liability,” “violated clearly established law”), without linking the
10
claims to supporting facts, a particular defendant, or a resulting injury. To further complicate
11
matters, plaintiff has listed nineteen defendants, but has failed to refer to them as such in the body
12
of his complaint. Because the complaint refers to additional individuals who are not included
13
among the listed nineteen defendants, there are simply too many characters to keep track of. Rule
14
8 requires the pleader to set forth his averments in a simple, concise, and direct manner. Plaintiff
15
has not done so in his complaint. Plaintiff’s cramped handwriting, coupled with the poor quality
16
of the copy of the complaint, exacerbate these deficiencies.
17
Plaintiff also appears to include numerous claims that could not properly be joined in this
18
action with his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Avila and Christensen. For
19
example, he complains of excessive force, sexual assault, retaliation, and other instances of
20
deliberate indifference to medical needs. These claims may implicate separate defendants and be
21
insufficiently related to the Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Avila and Christensen.
22
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[u]nrelated claims against
23
different defendants belong in different suits . . . .”).
24
Plaintiff has submitted a complaint so convoluted that the court cannot reasonably
25
discharge its screening responsibility under § 1915A. Plaintiff must therefore file an amended
26
complaint that complies with the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8. See McNeil v. United
27
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (federal rules apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking
28
access to counsel); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (encouraging “firm
3
1
application” of federal rules in prisoner cases); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th
2
Cir. 1996) (affirming Rule 8 dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with
3
redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and providing an example of a properly pleaded claim, which
4
could be “read in seconds and answered in minutes”).
5
C. Leave to Amend
6
Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair
7
notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.
8
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff may choose to file an amended complaint
9
that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states a cognizable claim.
10
Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only
11
persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional
12
rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the
13
deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to
14
perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).
15
16
The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
17
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
18
George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor may he bring unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Id.
19
Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
20
without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
21
complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
22
earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
23
F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
24
being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
25
1967)).
26
Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above
27
requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual
28
background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his
4
1
amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing
2
and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names
3
actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in
4
which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court.
5
The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
6
Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed.
7
See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
8
II. Request for Appointment of Counsel
9
District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section
10
1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional
11
circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See
12
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.
13
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional
14
circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
15
ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
16
involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors,
17
the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
18
III. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
19
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. However, he fails to meet the minimum threshold for
20
merit to satisfy the standard for a preliminary injunction.2 At an irreducible minimum, he must
21
demonstrate that there is at least a fair chance of success on the merits. Johnson v. California
22
State Board of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995); Sports Form, Inc. v.
23
United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982). As discussed above, his complaint
24
2
25
26
27
28
A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be
indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141,
143 (9th Cir.1964). The moving party must prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,
586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ––– U.S. ––
––, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375–76, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)).
5
1
must be dismissed and at present he has shown no likelihood of success on the merits of any
2
claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief must be denied.
3
IV. Conclusion
4
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
5
1. The amended complaint (ECF No. 38) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30
6
days. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action.
7
8
9
10
11
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 37)
is denied as moot.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 38) is denied.
4. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint
used by this court.
12
Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
13
1. Defendants Avila and Christensen’s motion to strike (ECF No. 30) be denied as moot;
14
and
15
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 35) be denied.
16
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
17
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
18
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
19
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
20
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
21
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
22
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
23
Dated: May 17, 2018.
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?