Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01600-25/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CLINTON, No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2008, plaintiff submitted a fourth amended complaint. 

Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written

consent of the adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because an answer was filed on October

12, 2007, plaintiff may not amend the complaint unless leave of court to do so is first given. 

Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to amend nor a stipulation to amend the complaint signed by

all parties. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will, therefore, be stricken, and this action will

proceed on the existing pleadings.

In addition, the court notes that plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint consists of

103 pages, plus he has requested to submit 297 pages of supporting documentation with this

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 111 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 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

2

fourth amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim ...” Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint does not qualify

as a short concise statement as required under Rule 8. This pleading method does not satisfy the

requirement of Rule 8 that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. To the contrary,

plaintiff’s complaint would require the court to comb through 400 pages in order to even guess at

plaintiff’s claims. The court is unwilling to do this in part due to limited judicial resources, but

also because it is for plaintiff – not the court – to formulate his claims. Plaintiff has previously

been advised of the proper pleading requirement to comply with Rule 8. (See June 1, 2006

Order, Doc. 33). Accordingly, if plaintiff intends to request leave to file a fourth amended

complaint, he is warned that any proposed amended complaint must comply with Rule 8. 

However, plaintiff is cautioned that the court is not disposed to allow further

attempts to amend the complaint in this case under Rule 15. Plaintiff has had several

opportunities to amend his complaint. Although several of the defendants and claims in his third

amended complaint have been dismissed pursuant to the court’s September 27, 2007 order (Doc.

84) granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, his third amended complaint has viable

claims which have survived. Any proposed amended complaint cannot resurrect those claims

which have been dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s fourth amended

complaint, submitted on February 5, 2008, is stricken. 

DATED: February 14, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01600-DAD-DMC Document 111 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2