Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00449/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00449-3/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv0449-Grt Ext FAC and Reconsideration.wpd, 7711 1 10cv0449 MMA (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OWEN LINO,

CDCR #J-45685,

Civil No. 10cv0449 MMA (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; AND 

(2) GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF Nos. 26, 27]

vs.

J. KELLERMAN, et al.;

Defendants.

On February 26, 2010, Owen Lino (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at Kern Valley State Prison, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). The Court granted

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint for failing to state

a claim. See Apr. 21, 2010 Order at 4-5. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

on May 24, 2010.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00449-MMA-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv0449-Grt Ext FAC and Reconsideration.wpd, 7711 2 10cv0449 MMA (PCL)

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend/Supplement First Amended

Complaint,” Motion to Appoint Counsel, and a “Motion for Law Library Access and Copy of

Court Docket.” [ECF Nos. 5, 7, 8].

The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, granted in part and

denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Law Library Access and copy of Court Docket, and granted

Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. See July 12, 2010 Order at 3. Plaintiff

filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 16, 2010. Then Plaintiff filed a “Motion for

Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Motion for Extension of Time to File Third Amended

Complaint and Motion for Order for the Clerk to send only my Declaration in my Second

Amended Complaint” [ECF No. 12].

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion, in part, and allowed Plaintiff an extension of time

to file his Third Amended Complaint. See Sept. 14, 2010 Order at 2. However, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his “declaration” because it simply was not clear what document

he was referring to. Id. at 2. 

On November 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reconsideration in the last Court’s

Order pertaining to Plaintiff’s extension of time to amend his Complaint” [ECF No. 17]. In this

Motion, Plaintiff requested one of two options in which he sought a Court order either: (1)

directing the Clerk of Court to send him a copy of his Second Amended Complaint and provide

an additional twenty five days to file his Third Amended Complaint; or (2) directing the Warden

of Kern Valley State Prison to turn over his legal property. The Court again granted Plaintiff

an extension of time to file his Third Amended Complaint and provided him with a copy of his

Second Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiff was cautioned that he must show good cause

for any future requests for extensions of time and the Court will not continue to provide him with

free photocopies of any future pleadings he chooses to file.

Plaintiff then filed his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) which is ninety (90) pages

long, named forty two (42) defendants and contained a different claim against a different

defendant on each page. Plaintiff also filed a “Motion for 3 Judge Court.”

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00449-MMA-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv0449-Grt Ext FAC and Reconsideration.wpd, 7711 3 10cv0449 MMA (PCL)

This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for “3 Judge Court” and dismissed his Third

Amended Complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Local Rule 8.2. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

Instead of filing a Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Extension

of Time to File and a Request for Additional Count Sheets” and “Motion for Reconsideration”

of the Court’s May 20, 2011 Order.

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Under Rule 60(b), a motion for “relief from judgment or order” may be filed within a

“reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “not more than one year after the judgment, order,

or proceeding was entered or taken.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). Reconsideration under Rule 60 may

be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

satisfied; or (6) for any other reason justifies relief. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

In this Motion, Plaintiff claims that he needs additional pages that exceed the limits

placed by the Local Rules and the Court’s Order was “unjust.” Pl.’s Mot. at 1-4. Plaintiff also

argues that the Court was in error when his motion for a “3 Judge Court” was denied. Plaintiff

claims that due to prison overcrowding and his medical issues, he has adequately shown that he

requires a “3-Judge court to convene concerning my case because it fits the standards of the

ruling in Plata v. Brown recently decided by the United States Supreme Court.” Id. at 5.

Here, while the Court will permit Plaintiff to exceed the number of pages permitted by

Local Rule 8.2, the Court’s denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s denial

of the 3-Judge Court as it is not required in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

III. Motion for Extension of Time to File Fourth Amended Complaint

The Court sets forth the above lengthy procedural history in this case to demonstrate that

Plaintiff has been given adequate opportunities to file his pleadings. This matter is now more

than a year old and remains in the screening stage. Moreover, with each additional amended

pleading, Plaintiff has added an overly burdensome number of Defendants and claims. “Prolix,

confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on

Case 3:10-cv-00449-MMA-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/07/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv0449-Grt Ext FAC and Reconsideration.wpd, 7711 4 10cv0449 MMA (PCL)

litigants and judges.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Such complaints

causes judges to “waste half a day in chambers preparing the ‘short and plain statement” which

Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension

of time and will permit him to file a Fourth Amended Complaint not to exceed forty five (45)

pages. Plaintiff must abide by Rule 8 and all of the previous Court Orders. Plaintiff is

admonished that no further extensions of time will be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Reconsideration are

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. 

2. Plaintiff has forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is “Filed” in which

to file a Fourth Amended Complaint and it is not to exceed forty five (45) pages. Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.

See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the

Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00449-MMA-PCL Document 29 Filed 07/07/11 Page 4 of 4