Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01101-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLARD BIRTS, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1101 LKK EFB P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 27, 2005, plaintiff filed an original complaint. On May 23, 2005, he

filed a first amended complaint. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit

or paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff must submit the

appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate

filing fee. If plaintiff fails in this regard, the court will issue a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

This court must examine the complaint in “a civil action in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

Case 2:05-cv-01101-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Furthermore, the court cannot require defendants to reply to such complaints without first determining

that plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of his claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). 

2

 A party need only plead in terms that are sufficient to provide the necessary notice to his adversary, and

evidentiary material supporting the general statements normally should not be set out in the pleadings but rather

should be left to be brought to light during the discovery process. Wright & Miller § 1281 Rule 8 p. 519.

3

 In this regard, the mere fact that this action falls into the exclusive category the court must screen under 

§ 1915A dictates a strict interpretation of whether the pleading is sufficiently short and plain. The undersigned has

at least 200 such cases on the docket at any one time. One poorly-pleaded, 30-page prisoner complaint, multiplied

by 200, yields 6,000 pages of material the court must review and screen and this does not account for the frequency

with which a pro se prisoner’s pleading must go through amendment before service of process. The defendants and

the court must select the relevant material from the mass of verbiage. “[T]he law does not require nor does justice

demand that a judge must grope through [thousands of] pages of irrational prolix and redundant pleadings,

containing matters foreign to the issue involved . . . in order to determine the grounds for the [plaintiff’s] complaint.” 

Passic v. Michigan, 98 F. Supp. 1015, 1016-17 (D.C. Mich. 1951). 

2

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

The complaint is so prolix and obscure that the court cannot reasonably conduct the

initial screening under § 1915A until plaintiff complies with the pleading requirements set forth

in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires the pleader to set forth his

averments in a simple, concise, and direct manner.2 The degree of simplicity and conciseness

required depends on the subject matter of the litigation, the nature of the claims or defenses

presented, and the number of parties involved. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure,

vol. 5 § 1281 & n. 12 (1990) (explaining that an antitrust or copyright pleading due to its

complexity, must be pleaded with more detail than a simple negligence complaint).3

In reviewing the complaint to determine if it states a claim for relief, the court will

construe plaintiff’s pleading liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The

court will not dismiss a complaint without first identifying the deficiencies and giving plaintiff

an opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987).

Before undertaking to determine whether the complaint may have merit, the court may

insist upon compliance with its rules. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)

(federal rules apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel); see also

Case 2:05-cv-01101-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (encouraging “firm application” of federal

rules in prisoner cases).

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The complaint itself exceeds sixty pages in length and names in excess of forty

defendants. 

In reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court is required to guess who is being sued for

what. If the pleading were served in its present form it would not give defendants fair notice of

the claims against them and their best guess about the nature of plaintiff’s complaint may be

quite different than the court’s. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1170-78 (9th Cir. 1996)

(court should be able to read the complaint in minutes, not hours, and may consider the rights of

defendants to be free from costly and harassing litigation and other litigants waiting their turns to

have other matters resolved); see also Nevijel v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., 651 F.2d 671,

674-75 (9th Cir. 1971); Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Commission, 442 F.2d

1047, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 1971).

Plaintiff need not identify the law that makes the alleged conduct wrong. He may use

his own language to state, simply and directly, the wrong that has been committed and clearly

explain how each state actor identified as a defendant was involved and what relief plaintiff

requests of each defendant. Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

Angeles, 733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1984); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to continue this litigation he must file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

A complaint must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all

parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

More than one claim against a single defendant may be joined in the same action. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 18(a).

////

Case 2:05-cv-01101-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 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

4

 Negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, to illustrate the simplicity and

brevity of statement contemplated by the rules (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 84), this example of a complaint based upon an

automobile accident is provided:

1. Allegation of jurisdiction.

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts,

defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken and was otherwise injured, was

prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for

medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of ____ dollars and costs.

Form 9, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

Claims against different defendants may be joined in the same action only if the claims

arise from the same transactions or occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence must be set apart as a

“separate count.” Within each count, the circumstances that give rise to the claim must be

alleged in separate, numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

 These allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief

plaintiff seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002);

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002).4

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

The amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to plaintiff’s

original complaint. Local Rule 15-220.

A prisoner pursuing civil rights claims without counsel, like all other litigants, is required

to obey the court’s orders, including an order to amend his pleading. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 

His failure to obey the court’s orders and the local and federal rules and meet his responsibilities

in prosecuting this action may justify dismissal, including dismissal with prejudice. Ferdik, 963

F.2d at 1262-63 (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s failure to comply with

order requiring filing of amended civil rights complaint); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (affirming

Case 2:05-cv-01101-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 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

5

dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s failure to comply with order requiring filing of

amended habeas petition); Moore v. United States, 193 F.R.D. 647, 653 (N.D. Cal. 2000)

(denying motion for leave to file third amended complaint and dismissing action with prejudice

for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232-33

(9th Cir. 1984) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s failure to prosecute);

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for

pro se prisoner’s failure to comply with local rule requiring he notify the court of any change of

address).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days from the date that this order is served, file an

appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing

fee. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty

days. Plaintiff shall file an original and one copy of the second amended complaint, which must

bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Second Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation the action be dismissed and, if

warranted, dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: December 11, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01101-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 5