Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01496-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. PARKS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01496-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE 

LIMIT FOR THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (Doc. 35)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A CIVIL 

RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS REQUESTING THE COURT TO 

SCREEN FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINTS (Docs. 34, 37)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a 61-page complaint. 

(Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint––prior to screening and service in the 

interest of conserving judicial time and resources––to add a defendant and a retaliation claim. 

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(Doc. 16.) The Court granted the motion and afforded Plaintiff thirty days to file a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”), subject to a 25-page limitation: 

. . . Rule 8 requires the complaint to be “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The rule also 

provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). 

Plaintiff’s original complaint is forty-two handwritten pages, including factual 

details unrelated to his First Amendment claims. Therefore, Plaintiff shall limit his 

amended complaint to twenty-five (25) pages[.]

(Doc. 17 at 2 (alteration in original).)

Despite this order, on February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to exceed the page limit 

for the FAC. (Doc. 19.) At the same time, Plaintiff lodged a 109-page FAC, consisting of 165 

paragraphs––or approximately 65 pages––of handwritten text. (Doc. 20.) On April 5, 2022, the 

assigned magistrate judge entered an order finding the lodged FAC was inappropriate for filing 

and denying the motion to exceed the 25-page page limit. (Doc. 21.) However, the Court again 

granted Plaintiff leave to file an FAC that complied with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and does not exceed a total of 25 pages. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed a motion for relief 

from this order pursuant to Rule 60, as well as objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling.1

(Docs. 22, 23.)

During the pendency of the Rule 60 motion and objections, on May 2, 2022, Plaintiff 

filed another motion for leave to file an FAC exceeding 25-pages and lodged a 39-page FAC. 

(Docs. 27, 28.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion: “Upon review, although the pro se

Plaintiff has not strictly complied with the prior court orders, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s 

FAC as filed and screen the FAC in due course.” (Doc. 29.)

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to screen the FAC. (Doc. 34.) 

Approximately fifteen days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to exceed the 25-page limit in a second 

amended complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. 35) Plaintiff submitted his own declaration in support of 

the motion, asserting: 

1 The district judge denied the Rule 60 motion and overruled the objections, which were rendered 

moot because the Court granted Plaintiff’s leave to file the 39-page first amended complaint. (See Docs. 

28, 31.)

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

. . . I amended the complaint for a SAC to add incident where both defendant’s 

Parks and Lirones retaliated against. The attached exhibits are material evidence 

of said retaliatory animus. I also attach exhibits to my complaints because the 

evidence is referred to when engaging in settlement discussion(s) and/or for my 

Demend For Settlement(s). . . . If I tried to make the SAC any shorter it would 

omit some acts of retaliation by defendant’s by leaving out the fact(s) leading up 

to the act(s) of retaliation. 

(Id. at 3 (scrivener’s errors in original).) Plaintiff concurrently lodged a 46-page SAC. (Doc. 

36.)

Upon preliminary review of the proposed SAC, the Court finds the pleading is 

inappropriate for screening. The pleading does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8, which requires the complaint to be “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The rule also provides that “[e]ach 

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1).

Although Plaintiff’s claims do not present novel or complex legal theories, the SAC 

consists of 4 pages of the civil rights complaint form and approximately 22 typed pages,2 with 

212 paragraphs. The narrative contains excessive and extraneous details; recreated quotations 

and conversations; and irrelevant and unhelpful comments.

3

 Because of this, the Court is unable 

to discern whether Plaintiff’s claims have merit. Plaintiff also attached exhibits that he describes 

as material evidence of retaliatory animus. However, such exhibits, particularly the declarations 

of Pena and Laundry, are unnecessary at this pleading and screening stage of the proceedings. 

The nature of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims and pertinent facts do not warrant an extension 

of the 25-page limit.

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”) that is 

limited to a total of 25 pages, typed and double spaced, and in compliance with Rule 8. Absent

extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not entertain another request to exceed the 25-page 

2 The Court greatly appreciates that Plaintiff typed this pleading due to the legibility of his 

previous, handwritten pleadings. However, the document is not double spaced as required by Local Rule 

130(c), making it lengthier than contemplated by the rule.

3 For example, Plaintiff states: “[Had] Plaintiff been the same dummy he was 20-years ago he 

would have ass[a]ulted attacked, battered, defendant Parks for the disrespect and yelling at him like he was 

some kind of punk bitch or something . . . .” (Doc. 36 at 7, ¶ 16.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 03/01/23 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

limitation. Plaintiff is reminded that a TAC supersedes the prior complaints. Lacey v. Maricopa 

Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the TAC must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” L.R. 220.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to exceed the page limit for the second amended 

complaint, (Doc. 35), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff shall file, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, a third

amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and does not exceed a total of 

twenty-five (25) pages. Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this 

action; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to screen the first amended complaint, 

(Doc. 34), is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to screen the second amended complaint, 

(Doc. 37), is DENIED AS MOOT;

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Civil Rights 

Complaint form.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will screen the first amended complaint 

filed on May 2, 2022, (Doc. 28), in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01496-KES-CDB Document 38 Filed 03/01/23 Page 4 of 4