IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
March 28, 2011
DANIEL H. GOVIND,
OBERST, FIEGENER, FLAHERTY, NUCHOLS, GAMBERG, WARDEN FELKER, D. L. RUNNELS, RUNNELS, LAMBERTON, JAMES, GARRISON, ROCHE, HARRISON, AND M. MCDONALD,
GORDON, SPANGLE, WAGNER, ARMETTA AND KOPEC DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants bring a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the First Amended Complaint contains no allegations whatever against these sixteen (16) defendants which gives rise to a cause of action .
A review of the complaint for 12(b)(6) purposes when so many defendants are involved has been complicated by the fact that the complaint does not purport to set forth separate causes of action against specific individuals. It is more akin to a diary spanning several years, raising every conceivable slight or unpleasantness visited upon him during his period of incarceration including unpleasant odors in the air. More often than not, it is impossible to ascertain a causal connection between the perceived wrong and anything done by custodial staff.
For the reasons stated in Defendants' motion to dismiss, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss as to each defendant with leave to amend. The court suggests that if plaintiff elects to amend his complaint he remain mindful of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that a pleading "contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" and a "short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought . .."
An amended complaint, if plaintiff elects to file one, is due May 2, 2011. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2014 VersusLaw Inc.