The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
FIRST SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 8, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Edin A. Chacon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 1.)
On November 7, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this action, and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 14.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
III. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California. The events at issue occurred at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) in San Quentin, California, and CCI. Plaintiff names as defendants Correctional Officer J. Cerrini, Lieutenant E. Patao, Lieutenant T. Amrhein-Conama, Institutional Gang Investigator T. Crouch, Sergeant J. Tyree, and Appeals Coordinator K. Sampson. Plaintiff brings claims for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment, against the named defendants.
Under federal notice pleading, a complaint is required to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). "While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
Plaintiff's Complaint, consisting of forty-three handwritten pages and one hundred twenty-five pages of exhibits, fails to comport with Rule 8(a)'s instruction that the complaint is only required to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Plaintiff's lengthy narrative, consisting of two hundred fifteen enumerated paragraphs, does not clearly or succinctly allege facts against the named defendants. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a). Twenty-five pages is more than sufficient for Plaintiff to identify his claims and set forth specific facts in support of those claims. Accordingly, the amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and it will be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation.
III. PLAINTIFF'S RETALIATION CLAIM
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...