Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Harrison v. Adams

February 25, 2010

MICHAEL D. HARRISON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE MOTIONS (Doc. 34, 37, 45, 47)

Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Before the Court are four motions from Plaintiff. On July 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for screening of his complaint. (Doc. #34.) On July 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that his appeal be granted and that the district court screen Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. #37.) On September 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. #45.) On January 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action. (Doc. #47.)

I. Plaintiff's Motions

A. Motion to Screen

Plaintiff's July 7, 2009 and July 27, 2009 motions both request that this court screen Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court is required to screen complaints from prisoners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will screen complaints in due course and requesting screening by motion is unnecessary. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has requested leave to file a third amended complaint. Because Plaintiff's request to file a third amended complaint will be granted, the Court will not screen Plaintiff's second amended complaint.

B. Motion to Grant Appeal

Plaintiff's July 27, 2009 motion requests that "this honorable court of appeals grant this appeal." It is unclear why Plaintiff's motion was filed with the district court. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on July 27, 2009. (Doc. #37.) Plaintiff's appeal was denied on September 15, 2009. (Doc. #44.) Plaintiff's request is therefore rendered moot and will be denied.

C. Motion to File Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's September 16, 2009 motion requests leave to file a third amended complaint. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and Plaintiff will be given leave to file a third amended complaint. However, upon review of Plaintiff's second amended complaint, the Court notes that Plaintiff's second amended complaint is 198 pages long, consisting of a 98 page complaint with approximately 101 pages of exhibits. The Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to facilitate the filing of a properly formatted third amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to comply with these rules when drafting and filing his third amended complaint may result in this action being dismissed.

1. Plaintiff's Complaint Must Be Short and Plain

Plaintiff's complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief". Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1) (emphasis added). "A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) (emphasis added). "[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count". Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) (emphasis added). A 98 page complaint written in narrative fashion that does not set forth any cause of actions in a clear or organized fashion is not "short and plain."

Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff's amended complaint must clearly state individually for each Defendant 1) who that Defendant is; 2) what that Defendant did; 3) what right that Defendant violated; and 4) how that Defendant's actions violated that right.

Plaintiff may not simply provide a narrative story recounting a series of injuries Plaintiff suffered then lump all Defendants together with a vague allegation that his rights were violated. Defendants are not sued collectively and each Defendant is only liable for the injuries that their own actions cause. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) ("The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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