Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


United States District Court, Northern District of California

June 4, 2003


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge


Florence Beardslee, a federal prisoner at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas ("FMC"), filed a prisoner action on March 14, 2003, while temporarily detained at the Alameda County Jail in Dublin, California, seeking a "temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction," and "immediate release." Beardslee's complaint/petition is largely incomprehensible, but appears to challenge numerous aspects of her confinement at various prisons (including FMC) and demands her "immediate release" under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Per order filed on April 17, 2003, the court dismissed the complaint/petition with leave to amend. The court explained:

Beardslee's demand for "immediate release" must be DISMISSED because she already has a § 2255 motion pending before Judge Jensen of this Court, who sentenced her in United States v. Beardslee, No. CR 94-0186 DLJ (N.D. Cal.). See Beardslee v. United States, No. C 01-0397 DLJ (N.D. Cal. filed on Jan. 24, 2001) (§ 2255 motion). Beardslee's pending § 2255 motion is her exclusive remedy for collaterally attacking her conviction or sentence. See Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988).
Beardslee's voluminous allegations regarding her conditions of confinement at various prisons are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Although some of the allegations may well amount to cognizable constitutional claims for relief, it is unclear exactly what claims she wishes to bring in federal court, who is being sued for what, and what relief she seeks. It is also unclear what claims have been rendered moot by her recent transfer[s] . . ., and which claims should be dismissed for wrong venue. "Prolix, confusing complaints such as the one[] plaintiff[] filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges," and violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff must file a simple, concise and direct amended complaint which states clearly and succinctly how each and every defendant is alleged to have violated plaintiffs federally-protected rights. See id. at 1177 ("The Federal Rules require that averments `be simple, concise, and direct."'). Plaintiff must clarify exactly what are the claims she wishes to bring in federal court and what relief she seeks, explain why venue is proper in this court, and "set forth specific facts" showing how each individual defendant caused the harm for which she seeks monetary relief. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
Apr. 17, 2003 Order at 1-2. The court then gave Beardslee 30 days to file a simple and concise First Amended Complaint and warned her that "[f]ailure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action." Id. at 2 (footnote omitted).

Nearly sixty days have elapsed and Beardslee still has not filed a First Amended Complaint or sought an extension of time to do so. Instead she has continued to file "joint" letters and motions in this case and her pending § 2255 case before Judge Jensen seeking "immediate release" and making broad claims of wrongdoing. The instant action is DISMISSED. In the interest of justice, the dismissal is without prejudice: Beardslee is free to file a new action for damages for constitutional deprivations incurred while she was detained in this district.

The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.



© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.