Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00056-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 Although plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he was a prisoner at the time this suit was filed.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. McFADZEAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00056-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8

(Doc. 17)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Mark A. McFadzean (“plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. Plaintiff filed this action on January 14, 2005. On June 20, 2005, the court dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 10, 2005.

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.1 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/18/06 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

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

B. Failure to Comply with Rule 8(a)

When the court screened plaintiff’s original complaint, it invested a significant amount of

time sorting through plaintiff’s myriad of claims. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is even

lengthier than his original complaint, is rambling and confusing in nature, and fails to set forth the

claims plaintiff is attempting to pursue in this action in a manner that complies with Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.”

In his amended complaint, plaintiff sets forth eight causes of action, some of which actually

contain multiple causes of action. Despite including a section of causes of action, which the court

should be able to rely on as setting forth the only legal claims plaintiff seeks to pursue in this action,

plaintiff immediately follows with a section entitled “Request for Relief” in which plaintiff sets forth

additional factual allegations concerning acts of retaliation, which were not raised in the section

laying out the causes of action. (Amend. Comp., p.27(a).) It is plaintiff’s duty to set forth in his

claims in a manner that complies with Rule 8. It is not the duty of the court to sift through thirty-four

pages of lengthy factual allegations and legal argument, and attempt to guess as to all of the claims

plaintiff is attempting to pursue. 

In amending his complaint, plaintiff must follow the instructions set forth on the form

complaint provided with this order. Specifically, in support of his claims for relief in this action,

which should be clearly identified so the court and defendants are aware of which claims are being

pursued, plaintiff should set forth only the factual allegations that support those claims. Plaintiff

should not make legal arguments. Further, plaintiff should not include extraneous facts which are

irrelevant to the claims in this action. 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/18/06 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

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). The

court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file a second amended complaint which complies

with Rule 8(a). Plaintiff is referred back to the court’s screening order of June 20, 2005, for further

guidance. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to

comply with Rule 8(a);

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a Bivens complaint form;

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

second amended complaint that complies with the directives in this order; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within thirty days, this action will

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 19 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 3