Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 19, 2014

CHARLES A. MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., Defendants

ORDER STRIKING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 35.)

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Charles A. Miller ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On March 8, 2012, defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez removed the case to federal court and requested the court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Docs. 1, 2.) On March 8, 2012, defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Ahmed, Anderson, Chudy, Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and Walker joined in the Notice of Removal of Action. (Doc. 4.)

On October 4, 2012, the court granted Defendants' motion for the court to screen the complaint. (Doc. 16.) The Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued a Screening Order on October 17, 2013, dismissing the Complaint for violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), with leave to file an amended complaint not exceeding twenty-five pages. (Doc. 32.)

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 35.)

II. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The court's screening order of October 17, 2013, found that Plaintiff's initial Complaint violated Rule 8(a)'s directive that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim." (Doc. 32 at 3 ¶A.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint not exceeding twenty-five pages. Plaintiff was also advised that "[i]f Plaintiff chooses to type the amended complaint, he should use double-spacing, not single-spacing." (Id. at 10:22-23.) Plaintiff was forewarned that the First Amended Complaint would be stricken from the record if it violated the court's page limitation. (Id. at 11 ¶5.)

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint consists of twenty-five typewritten pages, but he has not used double-spacing throughout the complaint. Plaintiff uses primarily single-spacing on a majority of the pages he has attached to the four-page form complaint. Thus, Plaintiff fails to comply with the court's order. Therefore, the First Amended Complaint shall be stricken from the record. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the defects found by the court in this order and the October 17, 2013 order.

Plaintiff is cautioned that the Ninth Circuit recently held that "dismissals following the repeated violation of Rule 8(a)'s short and plain statement' requirement, following leave to amend, are dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(g)." Knapp v. Hogan , 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013). "When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant simply cannot state a claim." Id . Thus, Plaintiff's continued failure to comply with the court's rules may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's case, with prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The court has found that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to comply with the court's order of October 17, 2014 which required Plaintiff to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and use double-spacing when typing the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, the First Amended Complaint shall be stricken from the record.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. Noll v. Carlson , 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

The amended complaint should be brief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Jones v. Williams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter... to state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones , 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added).

Twenty-five pages is more than sufficient for Plaintiff to identify his claims and set forth specific facts in support of those claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and if Plaintiff chooses to type the amended complaint, he is required to use double-spacing, not single-spacing. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.