United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SCREENING ORDER AND MOTION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM PAGE LIMIT (ECF No. 17) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 18) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
November 19, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's
complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state a
cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was granted leave to
file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF
No. 14.) On December 27, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion for a thirty-day extension of time to
file his first amended complaint, which is currently due on
or before January 29, 2020. (ECF No. 16.)
January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's November 19, 2019 screening order, (ECF
No. 17), together with a second motion for a thirty-day
extension of time to file his first amended complaint, with
the time to run from the date the Court issues a ruling on
the motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 18). These motions
are deemed submitted.
motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that when he
first submitted his complaint to the prison's litigation
coordinator for E-Filing, it was returned and he was informed
that it had to be mailed because it was more than 25 pages
long. Plaintiff later spoke to the prison librarian and
explained that he needed to E-File because it was a new
action, and that complaints in excess of the 25-page-limit
had to be E-Filed with the addition of a motion requesting
leave to exceed the page limit, pursuant to an order received
from the Court in the case In re: Allen Hammler,
1:19-mc-00029-SAB (E.D. Cal. 2019). Following this explanation
to both the prison librarian and the litigation coordinator,
Plaintiff provided a 37-page pleading, together with a motion
to increase the page limit, for electronic filing. Plaintiff
states that he was told that all pages had been E-Filed.
However, Plaintiff later learned that the Court received only
the first 25 pages of his complaint in this action. Plaintiff
argues that prison officials retaliated against him by
omitting pages from his complaint, and requests that the
Court screen the full complaint, attached to his motion.
Plaintiff appears to believe that the Court's screening
order finding that he failed to state a cognizable claim is a
dismissal of this action.
the Court clarifies that this action remains pending, and the
Court's November 19, 2019 screening order did
not dismiss or recommend the dismissal of this
action. Rather, Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to file
a first amended complaint (not to exceed twenty-five pages),
curing the deficiencies identified by the Court's
screening order. (ECF No. 14, p. 12.) To the extent Plaintiff
is requesting reconsideration on the basis that his action
should not be dismissed, the request is denied as moot.
extent Plaintiff is requesting that the Court screen the
attached 37-page complaint, with the included motion to
increase the page limit of e-filing, that request is also
denied. The request was already fully considered by the
Magistrate Judge in In re: Hammler, and Plaintiff
has included no further grounds, other than that the
“facts of the case are of a necessary length of 37
pages, ” for the Court to find that an exception to the
page limitation is warranted in this action.
consideration of this ruling on the motion for
reconsideration, the Court finds good cause to grant
Plaintiff's second motion for extension of time to file
his first amended complaint. As set forth in the November 19,
2019 screening order, Plaintiff's first amended complaint
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
is reminded that his amended complaint should be brief,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), but it must state what each named
defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations
must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding
new, unrelated claims in his first amended complaint.
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
(no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d
896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff's amended
complaint must be “complete in itself without reference
to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to
incorporate by reference.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 17), is
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a first