United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER SEVERING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING
CLERK'S OFFICE TO OPEN NEW CASE FOR PLAINTIFF BRITTNEY
FLOW-SUNKETT THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO EACH FILE
A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THEIR OWN CASES, NOT EXCEEDING
25 PAGES THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF BRITTNEY
FLOW-SUNKETT TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS OR PAY THE $400.00 FILING FEE IN HER OWN
CASE
GARY
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
BACKGROUND
Glenn
Sunkett and Brittney Flow-Sunkett (“Plaintiffs”)
are proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Glenn Sunkett
filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 12,
2019.[1] (ECF No. 1.) On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff
Glenn Sunkett filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint
and lodged a proposed First Amended Complaint signed by both
Plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On August 22, 2019, the court
issued an order addressing the motion to amend and informed
Plaintiffs that under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure they had leave to amend the Complaint once as
a matter of course. (ECF No. 15.) The First Amended Complaint
was deemed timely filed as of July 11, 2019. (Id.)
II.
SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff
Glenn Sunkett is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at
Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and Plaintiff
Brittney Flow-Sunkett is a non-prisoner residing at a street
address in Hayward, California. The two Plaintiffs are
husband and wife.
After
reviewing the First Amended Complaint, the Court has
determined that each Plaintiff should proceed separately on
his or her own claims. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that “[p]arties may be dropped or
added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms
as are just, ” and “[a]ny claim against a party
may be severed and proceeded with separately.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding
severance. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d
1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2000); Maddox v. County of
Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB, 2006 WL 3201078,
*2 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2006).
In the
Court's experience, an action brought by multiple
plaintiffs proceeding pro se in which one or more of
the plaintiffs is incarcerated presents procedural problems
that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from the
frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or
institutions, the changes in address that occur when inmates
are released on parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates
who attempt to communicate with each other and other
unincarcerated individuals. Further, the need for all
plaintiffs to agree on all filings made in this action, and
the need for all filings to contain the original signatures
of all plaintiffs, will lead to delay and confusion.
Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims shall be severed. Plaintiff
Glenn Sunkett shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in this
case, and a new case shall be opened for Plaintiff Brittney
Flow-Sunkett. Gaffney v. Riverboat Serv. of Indiana,
451 F.3d 424, 441 (7th Cir. 2006). Each Plaintiff shall be
solely responsible for prosecuting his or her own action.
Since
the claims of the Plaintiffs will be severed, each of the
Plaintiffs shall be granted thirty days to file, in his or
her own action, a Second Amended Complaint. Under Rule 15(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
Plaintiffs must each demonstrate in their individual amended
complaints how the conditions complained of resulted in a
deprivation of their constitutional rights. See Ellis v.
Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Each Plaintiff
must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to
‘state a claim that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere
possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Each amended complaint must
specifically state how each named defendant is involved. Each
Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his or
her rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added).
Each
of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaints may not
exceed 25 pages, including the pages in the form complaint
and any exhibits. If typewritten, the Second Amended
Complaints must be double-spaced. Under federal
notice pleading, a complaint is required to contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give defendant
fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Id. The federal
rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v.
County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.
2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits
have now disapproved any heightened pleading standard in
cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth
rare exceptions to simplified pleading). The First Amended
Complaint is 185 pages long, including exhibits. Rule
8(a) requires a plaintiff to set forth his or her claims
in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly.
See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514
(“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a
simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus
litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. The Court (and each defendant) should be able
to read and understand Plaintiff's pleading within
minutes. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80
(9th Cir. 1996). The First Amended Complaint
fails to comport with Rule 8(a)'s requirement for
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” The lengthy
narrative in the First Amended Complaint does not clearly or
succinctly allege facts against the named defendants.
Twenty-five pages, including the pages in the form
complaint and any exhibits, is more than sufficient for each
Plaintiff to identify his or her claims and set forth
specific facts in support of those claims. Furthermore, if
typewritten, the Second Amended Complaint must be
double-spaced.
With
respect to exhibits, while they are permissible, Fed.R.Civ.P.
10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice
pleading, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The Court strongly suggests to
Plaintiffs that they should not be submitted where (1) they
serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2)
they are intended as future evidence. If Plaintiffs'
actions reach a juncture at which the submission of evidence
is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or
trial), they will have the opportunity at that time to submit
their evidence.
Plaintiff
Brittney Flow-Sunkett shall also be required to submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
$400.00 filing fee for her own action, within thirty days.
Plaintiffs
should note that although they have been given the
opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of adding
allegations of events or issues arising after this action was
commenced on June 12, 2019. Also, Plaintiffs are not
permitted to bring unrelated claims in the same complaint.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a).
Finally,
Plaintiffs are advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an
amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to
any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,
375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is
filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function
in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each
defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Each amended
complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second
Amended Complaint, ” refer to the appropriate case
number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
III.
...