Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809-1/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J.D. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-05809-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 30)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Thomas Henderson (“Plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 29, 2003, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the

complaint must be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge gave notice of

the pleading deficiencies in the complaint, namely that the

complaint failed to comply with Rule 8's requirement that it

contain a short and plan statement. The Magistrate Judge then

granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On August

26, 2003, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 32 Filed 06/16/05 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

September 16, 2003, the Magistrate Judge again dismissed this

complaint because it failed to comply with Rule 8's requirments. 

On January 6, 2004, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. 

On March 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge struck the Second Amended

Complaint from the record because it did not comply with Rule 8's

requirements. The Magisrtate Judge granted Plaintiff additional

time to file a Third Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2005,

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order

striking the Second Amended Complaint.

When Plaintiff did not file a Third Amended Complaint, on

May 4, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which recommended this action be dismissed

based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the March 8, 2005 order and

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to

Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations

were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On May 25, 2005,

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the

recommendation that the action be dismissed. No complaint is

currently on file in this action, and this case cannot proceed

with a complaint on file. The complaints Plaintiff has filed

were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 32 Filed 06/16/05 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

1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of

deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for

failure to state a claim). Instead of filing an amended

complaint that complies with Rule 8, Plaintiff has taken the

stance that his prior complaints complied with Rule 8 and the

court should serve the prior complaints. Given the length of

the complaints, the numerous attached exhibits, and the failure

to state clear causes of action or claims for relief, the court

agrees that the Magistrate Judge properly dismissed the prior

complaints. The court is faced with a situation were Plaintiff

refuses to file a complaint that complies with Rule 8.

The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in

which a plaintiff fails to keep an operative complaint on file by

filing an amended complaint. The public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of

dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may

be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. 

Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also

has little or no weight in actions where the plaintiff lacks

enough of an interest to file an amended complaint. The public

and the court have no interest in determining the truth or

falsity of the allegations that Plaintiff might raise in an

amended complaint if Plaintiff never files an amended complaint. 

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered,

but given that no complaint is on file, the court has no

effective sanction but to close the case. 

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 32 Filed 06/16/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 4, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s refusal

to obey the Court’s order of March 8, 2005, and failure to comply

with Rule 8(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 32 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 4