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.

Crisp v. California Health Care Facility

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 6, 2014

OBI LEE CRISP III, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

SCREENING STANDARD

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). A claim is legally frivolous when, taking its factual allegations as true, it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).

The key consideration applicable to this complaint, however, is that the federal rules contemplate brevity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (complaint must be "a short and plain statement"); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. , 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) ("Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim"). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d) (1) ("[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and direct"); McHenry v. Renne , 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[t]he Federal Rules require that averments be simple, concise, and direct"); see Crawford-El v. Britton , 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that "firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted" in prisoner cases).

The courts do grant leeway to pro se plaintiffs in construing their pleadings. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy , 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[a]lthough a pro se litigant... may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong"). Even with leeway and liberal construction, however, the complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is being alleged against whom, require the court to spend its time "preparing the short and plain statement' which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit, " or require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines "to determine who is being sued for what." McHenry , 84 F.3d at 1179. An excessively long and repetitive pleading, containing much narrative and story-telling, naming many defendants and other named individuals who may or may not be defendants, and with no clear statement of which individuals did what, very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and ultimately, an order dismissing plaintiff's action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, for violation of these instructions. Id.

ANALYSIS

In this case, plaintiff's complaint spans 29 single-spaced, handwritten pages, plus an additional 17 pages of what may be exhibits. As best the court can tell, plaintiff alleges that he is disabled by morbid obesity and possibly related skin conditions, as well as serious knee problems and mobility limitations. He appears to allege that he is therefore a person with serious medical needs, and also a person with disabilities pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213 (which, broadly, prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by public entities), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796/ (which, broadly, prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against persons with disabilities). Plaintiff appears to allege that various defendants violated the ADA and RA by denying him required medical and sanitary needs, that they violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by ignoring his serious medical needs, and that they engaged in reprisals and retaliation.

The complaint however, consists of lengthy and repetitive narratives and story-telling. Figuring out from this complaint what claims plaintiff is making, which allegations support which claims, and which allegations are asserted against which defendants, would be excessively timeconsuming for the court, and in the end, the court would not know that it was correctly interpreting the complaint. The Ninth Circuit has set forth some of the dangers of proceeding with such a complaint:

As a practical matter, the judge and opposing counsel, in order to perform their responsibilities, cannot use a complaint such as the one plaintiff filed, and must prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what. Defendants are then put at risk that their outline differs from the judge's, that plaintiffs will surprise them with something new at trial which they reasonably did not understand to be in the case at all, ...


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.