Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
BEARDSLEE v. ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL
June 4, 2003
FLORENCE BEARDSLEE, PLAINTIFF(S),
ALAMEDA COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., DEFENDANT(S).
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
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 ...
Buy This Entire Record For