Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758-13/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

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

LEE EDWARD PEYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01758-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH RULE 8(A), AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT WHICH COMPLIES WITH THIS

ORDER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 37)

Screening Order

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Lee Edward Peyton (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

December 6, 2006, and on January 3, 2007, filed an amended complaint as a matter of right. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s amended

complaint stated cognizable claims for relief against Defendants Kuykendall, Wilson, Garcia, Kirby,

Elias, and Holbuin for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but

did not state any other claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was

ordered to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 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 The exhibits were not electronically filed due to their volume and are maintained in paper. 1

2

only on his cognizable excessive force claims. On August 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended

complaint accompanied by voluminous exhibits. 

1

II. Failure to Comply with Rule 8(a)

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was twenty-two pages long, and, in light of the fact that

Plaintiff set forth allegations concerning treatment of prisoners other than himself, it was

unnecessarily lengthy. (Doc. 32, Order, 2:14-19.) The Court reviewed all of the allegations and

provided Plaintiff with specific notice regarding the claims that were deficient. Omission of the

allegations concerning other prisoners should have led to the submission of a shorter pleading or at

least a pleading not dissimilar in length. Plaintiff opted to file a second amended complaint rather

than proceed only on his excessive force claims, and submitted a rambling,sixty-five page pleading.

The Court has reviewed the pleading and there is no justification for its length. 

Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). Rule 8(a) expresses the

principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need not give an elaborate recitation of every fact

he may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “‘give the defendant fair notice

of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.

A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-12, 122 S.Ct. 992 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct.

99 (1957)). Because the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level . . ,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations

omitted), Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate what happened to him and to make a

showing that what happened to him rose to the level of a constitutional violation, but it is

unnecessary for Plaintiff to provide a lengthy narrative setting forth every detail regardless of how

trivial or irrelevant. Further, Plaintiff should not make legal arguments in his pleading.

The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a third amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length and while Plaintiff

may include exhibits, they are not necessary. If Plaintiff opts to submit exhibits, he must cite to them

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 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

3

with specificity and he may not rely on them to state his claims for him. If Plaintiff’s third amended

complaint exceeds twenty-five pages, it will be stricken from the record. Further, Plaintiff may not

add any new claims. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is limited to those claims raised in the first

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot”

complaints).

III. Order

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule

8(a);

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

third amended complaint;

4. The third amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length and if it is

accompanied by exhibits, Plaintiff may not rely upon the exhibits to state his claims

for him;

5. If Plaintiff’s third amended complaint exceeds twenty-five pages in length or

otherwise violates this order, it will be stricken from the record; and

6. The failure to file a third amended complaint in compliance with this order will result

in dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 44 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 3