Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b).
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[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).
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) "requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
In dismissing plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend, the court informed plaintiff of the following:
Plaintiff's complaint violates Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint is so prolix and convoluted that the court cannot reasonably discharge its screening responsibility under § 1915A until plaintiff complies with the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8. This rule requires the pleader to set forth his averments in a simple, concise, and direct manner. Before undertaking to determine whether the complaint may have merit, the court may insist upon compliance with its rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (federal rules apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (encouraging "firm application" of federal rules in prisoner cases).
Plaintiff need not identify the law that makes the alleged conduct wrong. He may use his own language to state, simply and directly, the wrong that has been committed and clearly explain how each state actor identified as a defendant was involved and what relief plaintiff requests of each defendant. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency of L.A., 733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1984); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978). In fact, the inclusion of lengthy legal conclusions in plaintiff's original complaint has contributed enormously to the court's difficulty in performing its § 1915A review responsibility. For example, plaintiff's listing of defendants spans over nine typewritten pages due to the unnecessary legal conclusions contained therein. E.g., Dckt. No. 1 at 3-4 (arguing that defendant Dickinson "has approved, encouraged and plotted a campaign of retaliation and calculated harassment with the other defendants named herein"), 4 (arguing that defendant Matt Cates "is directly responsible for the over all medical care, health and well being of the Plaintiff" and "is directly responsible for the violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . ., violation of Plaintiff's Civil and Constitutional rights of equal protection, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, retaliation, among other rights").
The court's screening task is further complicated by the complaint's repetition and disorganization. Plaintiff has unnecessarily included legal and factual allegations against defendants in the "Parties" portion of his complaint that are also contained in his "Statement of Facts" and "Claims for Relief." In addition, plaintiff's "Statement of Facts" contains redundant allegations and fails to set forth the underlying incidents in a clear fashion. Instead, plaintiff's allegations regarding separate incidents are intermingled such that the court has had great difficulty determining the scope of plaintiff's claims against each defendant. From the court's initial review, it appears that plaintiff challenges a number of separate incidents and the administrative proceedings spawned by those incidents: (1) an incident in which he was moved to a different housing unit and concurrently deprived of a chair he alleges is medically necessary and adequate bedding; (2) another incident in which he was placed in segregated housing after being found with a cell phone; (3) another incident in which he was deprived of pain medication; (4) another incident in which he had to wait several months for an ergonomic cane; (5) another incident in which he was denied permission for a specific typewriter; (6) several separate incidents in which his cell was ransacked or vandalized by custody staff and his property was taken or destroyed; (7) another incident in which he was denied visits with his wife; (8) another incident in which he was denied mail concerning fantasy football; (9) two incidents in which custody staff made plaintiff go to the dayroom despite his need for rest; (10) another incident in which custody staff wrongfully disciplined plaintiff for going to the canteen; (11) another incident in which plaintiff was not allowed to use the computer in the "ADA/DDP" section of the law library. Rather than including all allegations regarding a single incident and its attendant administrative proceedings in a single section of the complaint, plaintiff's "Statement of Facts" intersperses allegations each incident among one another, making it extremely difficult for the court to determine the allegations and defendants involved in each incident and, from there, whether the allegations make out a cognizable claim for relief and whether any claims are improperly joined in a single complaint.
The court simply does not have the resources to scour the 59 pages of plaintiff's complaint and 90 pages of exhibits and organize the allegations contained therein in order to perform its screening duty under § 1915A. Instead, the court must insist on plaintiff's compliance with Rule 8, and will accordingly dismiss the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint that contains only "a short and plain statement" of plaintiff's claims. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir.) (affirming Rule 8 dismissal of complaint that was "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant" and providing an example of a properly-pleaded claim, which could be "read in seconds and answered in minutes"); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 641 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming Rule 8 dismissal of "verbose, confusing, and almost entirely conclusory" complaint consisting of 48 pages with 14 pages of addenda and 9 pages of exhibits and "equally . . . verbose, confusing, and conclusory" amended complaint consisting of 23 pages with 24 pages of addenda); Washington v. Baenziger, 656 F. Supp. 1176, 1177 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (dismissing complaint consisting of 86 pages plus 15 pages of exhibits with 33 causes of action against 21 defendants for failure to comply with Rule 8).
Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to continue this litigation he must file an amended complaint. A prisoner pursuing civil rights claims without counsel, like all other litigants, is required to obey the court's orders, including an order to amend his pleading. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). His failure to obey the court's orders and the local and federal rules and meet his responsibilities in prosecuting this action may justify dismissal, including dismissal with prejudice. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262-63 (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner's failure to comply with order requiring filing of amended civil rights complaint); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner's failure to comply with order requiring filing of amended habeas petition); Moore v. United States, 193 F.R.D. 647, 653 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (denying motion for leave to file third amended complaint and dismissing action with prejudice for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 8); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232-33 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner's failure to prosecute); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for pro se prisoner's failure to comply with local rule requiring he notify the court of any change of address).
Plaintiff's amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements: It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.
It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff's action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff's allegations are true, and must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an ...