Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01156-13/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

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

Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed September 28, 2016. 

(ECF No. 56.) 

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action is proceeding against Defendants Johnson, Ybarra, Alva, Chan, O’Daniels, Franco, 

Sanchez, Esqueda, Santos and John Doe (Assistant Warden) for cruel and unusual punishment in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant John Does # 3, 4, 5, and 6, for deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need, and against Defendants Santos, Esqueda, and Ybarra for due 

process violations. 

PERRY C. BLAIR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01156-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

8

[ECF No. 56]

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

On February 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief and a separate motion to sever claims. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) Plaintiff filed 

an opposition on June 2, 2016, and Defendants filed a reply on June 9, 2016. (ECF Nos. 43-46.) 

On July 15, 2016, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending to 

grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, deny, without prejudice, Defendants’ 

motion to sever claims, and to grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend and/or supplement the second 

amended complaint to cure the Rule 20 defect only. (ECF No. 52.) 

The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on September 28, 2016, and 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint attached to his objections to the Findings and Recommendations 

was ordered to be filed. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) 

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, 

which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 

sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying 

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)

Plaintiff’s April 8, 2016, second amended complaint is 64 pages long and includes 261 

paragraphs of long and rambling allegations relating to several different claims against multiple 

Defendants.

1

 As noted above, the second amended complaint stated a claim for relief against

Defendants Johnson, Ybarra, Alva, Chan, O’Daniels, Franco, Sanchez, Esqueda, Santos and John Doe 

(Assistant Warden) for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against 

Defendant John Does # 3, 4, 5, and 6, for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and against 

Defendants Santos, Esqueda, and Ybarra for due process violations. Plaintiff was granted leave only

to cure the defects relating to the Rule 20 violation. In addition, Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive 

relief and official capacity claims for monetary damages were dismissed from the action. (ECF No. 

52, 

Plaintiff has been previously advised that a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff 

must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). While “plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of 

pleading facts . . .,” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se 

prisoners are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

 

1

Plaintiff’s original complaint was 61 pages, with 257 pages of exhibits (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

was 30 pages (ECF No. 9), and Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was 35 pages (ECF No. 14).

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 5
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

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

As Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s November 7, 2014, screening order, “[w]here the 

factual elements of a cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are 

not organized into a short, plain statement of the claim, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 if proper. 

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining complaint should set forth 

who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to provide notice to 

defendants). The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s 

claims.” (ECF No. 8, Order at 3:3-8.) 

In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 

describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted 

under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff 

must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff does not need to prove his case at this stage of the litigation. The court is only determining 

whether Plaintiff states a colorable claim. Legal argument and evidence are not required at this stage 

of the litigation. Plaintiff is advised that a short and simple statement of his claim will speed the 

screening of his case, and will help the litigation proceed in a more efficient manner. Finally, as 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must comply with Rule 18(a) and 20, the Court finds that twenty-five 

pages is sufficient for Plaintiff to raise his claims in this action. Accordingly, if Plaintiff chooses to 

amend the complaint, the amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and it will 

be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

In the order granting Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint presented unrelated claims and Plaintiff was granted leave to attempt to 

cure the Rule 20 violation, if he can do so. An amended complaint may only re-allege the violations 

presented in the second amended complaint, and address the deficiency regarding the Rule 20 

violation. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is in violation of Rule 8’s requirement that Plaintiff set 

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

forth a short and plain statement of his claim and must be dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank amended civil rights complaint 

form;

2. The September 28, 2016, third amended complaint is dismissed for a violation of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2);

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint. The fourth amended

complaint is due thirty days from the date of service of this order; 

4. The fourth amended complaint must be a short, simple and concise statement of

Plaintiff’s claim, and may not exceed 25 pages in length; and

5. Should Plaintiff fail to file a fourth amended complaint in compliance with

this order, the Court will dismiss and/or sever any and all unrelated claims set forth in 

the second amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/17 Page 5 of 5