United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ADDRESSING
PENDING MOTIONS RE: DKT. NOS. 5, 8, 11, 18
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita Jail, filed this pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint (Dkt.
No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
complaint will be DISMISSED with leave to amend because it
violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
8 requires the pleader to set forth his averments in a
simple, concise, and direct manner. Before undertaking to
determine whether a complaint may have merit, the Court may
insist upon compliance with its rules. See McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (federal rules
apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to
counsel); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S.
574, 597 (1998) (encouraging “firm application”
of federal rules in prisoner cases). The Court simply does
not have the resources to scour the 162 pages of
Plaintiff's complaint and over 200 pages of exhibits and
organize the allegations contained therein in order to
perform its screening duty under § 1915A. Instead, the
Court must insist on Plaintiff's compliance with Rule 8,
and will accordingly dismiss the complaint with leave to file
an amended complaint that contains only “a short and
plain statement” of Plaintiff's claims. McHenry
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir.) (affirming
Rule 8 dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative,
prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely
irrelevant” and providing an example of a
properly-pleaded claim, which could be “read in seconds
and answered in minutes”).
assist Plaintiff in preparing an amended complaint, the Court
reviews some of the applicable procedural rules and relevant
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
complaint's allegations be short and plain; simple,
concise, and direct; and describe the relief sought.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of Santa
Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). In his
amended complaint, Plaintiff should list the constitutional
right he has, describe what and when each defendant did or
failed to do, and describe how each defendant's acts or
omissions caused him injury. A long pleading that goes into
unnecessary detail about events not directly related to the
constitutional violations suffered by the plaintiff, such as
describing injuries to third parties or assaults committed by
Plaintiff or relationships between third parties; that
proffers personal opinion; or that speculates as to
defendants' motives, will likely result in continued
delay of the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or an
order dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of the