Velez et al v. State of California et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/11/2017 re 5 Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement: IT IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion for a more definite statement be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiffs have twenty days to file an amended complaint that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b) and clearly identifies which plaintiffs are bringing which claims and against which defendants. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

----oo0oo---HARRY VELEZ, MARIA LAZADA,
CIV NO 2:17-CV-00960 WBS KJN.
and ANDRE O’HARA,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE
CITY OF DAIRYVILLE; TEHAMA
COUNTY; THE TEHAMA COUNTY
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; DAVE
HENCRATT; STEVE HOAG; ROBERT
BAKKEN; and DUSTIN MARIA,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT

Defendants.

20
21
22

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Harry Velez (deceased), Maria Lazada,

23

(decedent’s mother), and Andre O’Hara (decedent’s son)

24

(collectively “plaintiffs”) filed this action against Sheriff

25

Dave Hencratt, Sergeant Steve Hoag, Deputy Robert Bakken, Deputy

26

Dustin Maria, the State of California, the City of Dairyville,

27

Tehama County, and the Tehama County Sheriff Department, alleging

28

that Deputies Robert Bakken and Dustin Maria used excessive force
1

1

while arresting Harry Velez, causing his death.

2

complaint asserts six claims: 1) a § 1983 claim for violations of

3

plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

4

Amendments rights1; 2) an assault/battery claim; 3) a false

5

arrest/imprisonment claim; 4) an intentional infliction of

6

emotional distress claim; 5) a negligent hiring, training,

7

supervision and/or retention of employees claim; and 6) a

8

negligence claim.

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), Tehama County, Tehama

10

County Sheriff Department, Dave Hencratt, Steve Hoag, Robert

11

Bakken, and Dustin Maria (collectively “defendants”) have filed a

12

Motion for a more definite statement.

13

I.

(Compl. 3 (Docket No. 1).)2

Plaintiffs’

Pursuant to

Background

14

On September 21, 2016, the Tehama County Sheriff

15

Department responded to a 911 call at 11725 Hwy 99E made by Harry

16

Velez (“Velez”), who claimed he had been drugged by his

17

girlfriend Natasha Finck (“Finck”).

18

Bakken and Deputy Dustin Maria responded to the call.

19

After speaking with Velez and Finck, Deputy Bakken handcuffed

20

Velez, purportedly for his own safety.

21

to the complaint, Velez was not armed and did not initiate

22

contact with either deputy.

23

stepped away from Deputy Bakken and, in retaliation, the deputies

(Id.)

(Compl. 10.)

Deputy Robert

(Id. at 11.)

(Id.)

According

Plaintiffs allege that Velez

24
1

25
26
27
28

The complaint seems to assert these five separate
constitutional claims as a single claim under “Violation of Civil
Rights – 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
2

The complaint does not contain numbered paragraphs.
Therefore, citations will reference page numbers rather than
paragraphs.
2

1

repeatedly tased and punched Velez.

2

plaintiffs purport that Velez yelled for help.

3

(Id.)

During the attack,
(Id.)

Velez was transported to the hospital where he died

4

from Hypoxic Encephalopathy (lack of oxygen to the brain) with

5

Multisystem Organ Failure.

6

Velez was tased at least ten times.

7

also reports that Velez had abrasions on his face, forearms,

8

knee, toes, and wrists, and had contusions on his fingers, chest,

9

and abdominal walls.

10

(Id.)

According to the autopsy,
(Id. at 15.)

The autopsy

(Id.)

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 5, 2017,

11

seeking damages for injuries to the decedent and to compensate

12

the family members for mental anguish and pecuniary injuries.

13

II.

14

Legal Standard
Rule 12(e) provides that “[a] party may move for a more

15

definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading

16

is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party

17

cannot reasonably prepare a response.”

18

The motion “must point out the defects complained of and the

19

details desired.”

20

statement are disfavored, and ordinarily restricted to situations

21

where a pleading suffers from unintelligibility rather than want

22

of detail.”

23

Supp. 2d 1009, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

24

definite statement should generally be denied if the complaint

25

“is specific enough to apprise the defendant of the substance of

26

the claim asserted against him or her.”

27

Autoposterpro, Inc., Civ. No. 08-05069 SBA, 2009 WL 890896, at *4

28

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009).

(Id.)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

“[M]otions for a more definite

Medrano v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff’s Officer, 921 F.

3

A motion for a more

Craigslist, Inc. v.

1

III. Discussion

2

Under Rule 8(a)(2), “a claim for relief must contain a

3

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

4

is entitled to relief.”

5

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”

6

8(d)(1).

7

preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations,

8

stories, griping, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses,

9

summaries, and the like.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

“Each
Fed. R. Civ. P.

Moreover, “a complaint must not contain lengthy

Todd v. Ellis, Civ. No. 2:13-1016 TLN

10

KJN, 2013 WL 3242229, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2015), citing

11

McHenry v. Renee, 84 F. 3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).

12

Here, the complaint is 74 pages, contains 106

13

footnotes, cites over 150 cases, and does not include numbered

14

paragraphs.

15

allegations of facts with legal arguments.

16

contains a four page section devoted to attempting to negate

17

potential defenses.

18

against the city and government employees without specifying

19

which claims are brought against which defendants and in which

20

capacities.

21

more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet

22

without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs

23

are suing for what wrongs.”

24

Throughout the entire 74 pages, plaintiffs mix

(Compl. 42-46.)

The complaint

Plaintiffs make allegations

Although it is “labeled a complaint [it is] written

McHenry, 84 F. 3d at 1180.

The complaint makes it very difficult to determine

25

which defendants are allegedly liable for which wrongs.

26

court [and defendants] should be able to read and understand

27

plaintiff’s pleading within minutes.” Todd, 2013 WL 3242229, at

28

*2, citing McHenry, 84 F. 3d at 1177.
4

“The

That is not possible here.

1

Defendants argue this makes it excessively difficult for the

2

individual defendants to formulate proper defenses, thus placing

3

an unnecessary burden on the defendants and the court.

4

McHenry, “[a]s a practical matter, the judge and opposing

5

counsel, in order to perform their responsibilities, cannot use a

6

complaint such as the one plaintiffs filed, and must prepare

7

outlines to determine who is being sued for what.”

8

Requiring defendants to file a responsive pleading to this

9

complaint would create an unnecessary burden likely to lead to

As in

(Id.)

10

confusion regarding which allegations have been admitted and

11

which have been denied.

12

Plaintiffs counter that had the complaint not been pled

13

with this level of particularity, they would have risked

14

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

15

in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for More Definite Statement 5 (Docket No.

16

9).)

17

heightened pleading standard is not an invitation to disregard

18

Rule 8’s requirement of simplicity, directness, and clarity.”

19

F. 3d at 1178.

20

pleading contains prolix evidentiary averments. . . rather than

21

clear and concise averments stating which defendants are liable

22

to plaintiffs for which wrongs, based on the evidence,” then the

23

purpose of Rule 8 is defeated.

(Resp.

However, the McHenry court clearly stated that even “[a]

24

84

The court went on to explain that “[i]f the

(Id.)

Plaintiffs further argue that defendants’ Motion did

25

not point out any specific details desired, as required by Rule

26

12(e).

27

convinced by this argument.

28

ask that plaintiffs make it clear who is bringing each of the

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

However, the court is not

Throughout their Motion, defendants

5

1

claims, in which capacity, and against which of the multiple

2

defendants.

3

Definite Statement 4 (Docket No. 5-1).)

4

details, and defendants clearly articulated their desire for

5

these details to be included in plaintiffs’ complaint.

6

(Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for More
These are important

Moreover, a complaint “must state its claims in

7

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practical to a single

8

set of circumstances.”

9

has no numbered paragraphs and is instead written like a motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

This complaint

10

As such, it will be very difficult for defendants to clearly

11

identify in an answer which allegations they are responding to.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for a

13

more definite statement be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

14

Plaintiffs have twenty days to file an amended complaint

15

that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and

16

10(b) and clearly identifies which plaintiffs are bringing which

17

claims and against which defendants.

18

Dated:

October 11, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6