IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 1, 2010
RON WALLS, PLAINTIFF,
B.C. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was reassigned to the undersigned on February 9, 2010.*fn1
On November 2, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiff's Amended Complaint with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. Dkt. No. 10. On December 1, 2009, plaintiff filed two documents, a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12), and a Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 13 (entitled "Amended Complaint")). For the following reasons, the court denies plaintiff's Motion, strikes his Proposed Second Amended Complaint, and again accords plaintiff thirty (30) days within which to file a Second Amended Complaint that conforms to standard pleading requirements and meets the concerns set forth in the court's prior order.
Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint consists of a cursorily completed form and references an attachment that was not included. Dkt. No. 13. While it is reasonable to infer that the referenced attachment is plaintiff's separately filed Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, including its lengthy statement of facts and the supporting exhibits attached thereto, these documents cannot properly be read together to form an acceptable complaint. Not only is plaintiff required to consolidate all relevant statements and documents in one pleading,*fn2 but even if these documents were read together the result would fail to comply with fundamental pleading rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.*fn3
While plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed September 28, 2009 (Dkt. No. 7) conformed to the pleading requirements of this court and the Federal Rules, it was dismissed for the substantive reasons set forth in the court's order filed November 2, 2009 (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff will be accorded one additional opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint that meets both substantive and pleading requirements. The "Statement of Fact" set forth in Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 12) should be incorporated in the new pleading, as well as any other facts that link each named defendant with conduct which plaintiff challenges.*fn4 Plaintiff may again verify the truth of his allegations. In addition, plaintiff should attach all pertinent exhibits to his Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12), is denied;
2. The "Second Amended Complaint" filed December 1, 2009 (Dkt. No. 13) is stricken;
3. Pursuant to the court's order filed November 2, 2009 (Dkt. No. 9), plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this order;
4. Failure timely to file a Second Amended Complaint will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff one copy each of the following documents: (a) plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed September 28, 2009 (Dkt. No. 7); (b) this court's order filed November 2, 2009 (Dkt. No. 9); and (c) plaintiff's Motion filed December 1, 2009 and attached exhibits (Dkt. No. 12).