United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
RALPH ZAREFSKY, Magistrate Judge.
The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (2AC) because Plaintiff continues to name several Defendants whom the Court has dismissed from the action. In addition, (1) the 2AC states no "short and plain" entitlement to relief, and (2) many if not all of the changes in the 2AC exceed the scope of leave granted by the Court in dismissing the First Amended Complaint (1AC).
THE 2AC IMPROPERLY TARGETS DISMISSED DEFENDANTS
The self-described "mobile homeless" and pro se plaintiff sues over a series of allegedly abusive contacts with him by police officers of the defendant City of Los Angeles. On October 3, 2013, the City moved to dismiss the 1AC. On October 11, the only other defendant to have appeared, Bob Stresak, joined in the City's motion and filed a dismissal motion of his own.
On January 3, 2014, the undersigned filed a First Interim Report urging the dismissal of several never-appearing defendants, namely LAPD officers Jester, Lin and the all eight DOES.
On January 7, the Court dismissed the 1AC with limited leave to amend within 30 days, partly based on the two dismissal motions and partly on its own motion. Plaintiff moved for an extension on February 6, and on February 12 the Court granted the motion by extending his deadline through February 20.
On February 13, the District Judge accepted the First Interim Report and dismissed the DOES, Jester and Lin from the action.
Now before the Court is the 2AC, filed on February 20. In it, Plaintiff continues to name Jester, Lin and the DOES. Perhaps Plaintiff, when completing his revisions in the 2AC, may not yet have been aware of the February 13 dismissals. Whatever may have caused it, however, this targeting of already-dismissed defendants necessitates dismissal of the 2AC with leave to amend.
Before closing, the Court observes two further, overlapping problems in the 2AC. If uncorrected, they may prompt yet another dismissal - and if so, it may lead to dismissal of the entire action. First, the 2AC worsens Plaintiff's practice of including lengthy and overly detailed narratives, speeches and political manifestoes. Second, Plaintiff has added new defendants, new theories of relief, and otherwise has exceeded the specific, limited scope of leave-to-amend that the Court granted. (He has also made some changes that were permitted, such as by separating his previously compound "everyone did everything" claims into separate claims, each asserting violation of one legal right.)
THE 2AC IS NOT "SHORT AND PLAIN"
A. Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that "[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief... shall contain... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "A claim is the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.'" Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 189 (2d Cir. 1943)). To comply with the Rule, a plaintiff must plead a short and plain statement of the elements of his or her claim, "identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of a prima facie case, " which elements, of course, will vary depending on the species of claim being ...