United States District Court, E.D. California
PERRY C. BLAIR, Plaintiff,
CDCR, et al., Defendants
Perry C. Blair, Plaintiff, Pro se, CORCORAN, CA.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [ECF No. 1]
Stanley A. Boone, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on July 24, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to the claims.
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 " fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that " seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A complaint must 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The " sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and " facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff's complaint is three hundred and eighteen pages (sixty one of which contain handwritten allegations and prayer for relief) in length and is incorporated, without reference, with exhibits. Plaintiff raises several different allegations against several different individuals, including cruel and unusual punishment, conspiracy, failure to protect, falsification of documents, due process violations, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and negligence.
Plaintiff's complaint must contain " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). " Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1). A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). " [E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).
Where the factual elements of a cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are not organized into a short, plain statement of the claim, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 if proper. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining complaint should set forth who is being sued, ...