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.

Gaines v. Sherman

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 7, 2016

LESLIE J. GAINES, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
STU SHERMAN Warden, et al., Defendants.

          SECOND DISMISSAL ORDER

          RALPH R. BEISTLINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Leslie J. Gaines, Jr., a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil rights action under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc), and the California Unruh Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51) against various officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.[1]

         The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.[2] Pending before the Court is the Amended Complaint.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.[3] The court having set forth that standard in its prior Dismissal Order does not repeat them herein.

         II. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

         Initially the Court notes that Gaines has disregarded the explicit instructions given by the Court in the first Dismissal Order with respect to the format and facts necessary to be alleged. A Court may dismiss an action on its own volition for the failure to follow a court order.[4] Furthermore, as presently constituted the Amended Complaint reads like a short story, not a complaint.[5] For the most part the allegations of the Amended Complaint are not only conclusory devoid of a factual basis, but conjecture and speculation bearing little, if any, relevance to a possible Constitutional violation. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is also deficient.

         III. ORDER

         The Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED in it entirety with leave to amend to the extent that the Court permitted amendment in its initial Dismissal Order.

         Plaintiff is granted through and including Monday, August 15, 2016, within which to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this Order. In preparing his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must:

         1. Adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding pleadings, in particular, Rule 8(a), which provides-

(a) CLAIM FOR RELIEF. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs ...

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.