Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00784-6/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

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY ORDER

(ECF No. 23)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY CASE PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF MOTION TO MODIFY

(ECF No. 23)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL EXTENSION

OF DEADLINE FOR FILING OF FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 19, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 14.) Since the screening order was issued, the Court 

has granted Plaintiff three separate extensions of time. (ECF Nos. 16, 19, 22.) 

During that time, Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order, 

which included a request for the Court to exempt him from the E-Filing page limitations and to 

Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 03/19/20 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

27

28

2

screen his full 37-page complaint. (ECF No. 17.) As explained in the January 10, 2020 order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on the basis that he should be exempted from the 

E-Filing page limitation, that argument and request was already fully considered by the 

Magistrate Judge in In re: Hammler, 1:19-mc-00029-SAB (E.D. Cal. 2019),1in accordance with 

the Court’s E-Filing procedures. (ECF No. 19.)

Currently before the Court are two motions, both filed March 18, 2020: (1) Plaintiff’s 

motion to modify order based on new developments; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to stay case 

pending resolution of motion to modify. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.)

II. Motion to Modify Order

In his motion to modify, Plaintiff requests that the Court modify its February 13, 2020 

order granting his third extension of time to file his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 22.) 

However, it is apparent to the Court that Plaintiff is actually challenging the Court’s ruling on his 

prior motion for reconsideration, specifically with respect to limiting his first amended complaint 

to twenty-five pages. Plaintiff argues that on August 30, 2019, he attempted to file a proposed 

amended complaint, together with a motion to be exempt from the E-Filing page limitation. 

However, those documents were not filed in the instant action, but were erroneously filed as a 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of In re: Hammler, Case No. 1:19-mc-00029-SAB (E.D. 

Cal.). In that case, Plaintiff filed what appears to be a longer version of the complaint filed in this 

action, together with a request to be exempt from electronic filing due to the page limitation. In 

that case, the Magistrate Judge explained that, due to his incarceration at California State Prison, 

Corcoran (“CSP-COR”), Plaintiff is subject to the Court’s Standing Order In Re: Procedural 

Rules for Electronic Submission of Prisoner Litigation Filed by Plaintiffs Incarcerated at 

Participating Penal Institutions, which includes CSP-COR.

Pursuant to the standing order, which applies to initial filings: (1) new complaints are 

subject to e-filing and they may not exceed twenty-five pages in length; and (2) motions seeking 

relief from the standing order, motions for emergency relief, or motions to increase the page limit 

shall be no more than fifteen (15) pages. As a California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation participating facility, no initial documents are accepted for filing by the Clerk of 

the Court unless done pursuant to the standing order, or the scanning equipment is inoperable for 

a period longer than forty-eight (48) hours.

Following briefing by the Office of the Attorney General by special appearance on behalf 

of CDCR, and from Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not presented a basis 

for court intervention and denied Plaintiff’s request to be exempt from the electronic filing 

requirement. The order specifically stated that Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s Standing 

Order to have his complaint electronically filed by this Court, and that failure to do so would 

result in return of the complaint as not filed. In re: Allen Hammler, Doc. No. 6.

Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 03/19/20 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

27

28

3

new case, Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-01212-AWI-JDP.2 Plaintiff states 

that he only recently discovered the error due to shuffling of his legal files. Plaintiff therefore 

argues that the Court should revisit the issue of allowing the full 37 pages to be screened, as the 

motion to submit a complaint in excess of the 25-page limit was submitted in accord with the 

Court’s Standing Order on E-Filings. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the undersigned’s 

reliance on the order issued in In re: Hammler is misplaced, as that court did not address the page 

limitation, but only Plaintiff’s request to be exempt from electronic filing (as opposed to 

submitting his complaint by mail). (ECF No. 23.)

First, Plaintiff is advised that all documents submitted to the Court for filing in an existing 

case should be clearly marked with the case number so the documents will be filed in the correct 

case. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to correctly identify his filings before submission to the Clerk 

of the Court. Further, to the extent Plaintiff believes Case No. 1:19-cv-01212-AWI-JDP was 

opened in error, he should address his concerns to the judge assigned to that action and label any 

such motion with the correct case number. Similarly, any ruling issued in Case No. 1:19-cv01212-AWI-JDP regarding Plaintiff’s motion to be exempt from the E-Filing page limitation is 

not applicable to the instant action.

Plaintiff’s argument that the order from In re: Hammler did not specifically address the 

page limitation is unpersuasive. Although Plaintiff did not explicitly argue that he should be 

exempt from the page limitation, the order clearly states that Plaintiff must comply with the 

Standing Order for E-Filing, which in turn specifically requires that new complaints subject to EFiling may not exceed twenty-five pages in length. In re: Hammler, Doc. No. 6. To the extent 

Plaintiff wishes the merits of his argument regarding page length to be considered in the instant 

case, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s current motion, as with his motion for reconsideration, also 

presents no specific grounds to support his argument for exemption from the page limitation.

///

///

2 The Court takes judicial notice of Hammler v. State of California, Case No. 1:19-cv01212-AWI-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Doc. Nos. 1, 2.

Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 03/19/20 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

27

28

4

III. Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Motion to Modify

Plaintiff further requests a stay of this case until thirty days after the Court’s ruling on his 

motion to modify order. (ECF No. 24.) The Court finds a stay unnecessary, and Plaintiff has not 

provided any argument in support of a stay.

However, given that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his first amended complaint has 

already passed, and to give Plaintiff sufficient time to receive the instant order and comply with 

his obligations, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff a final extension of time to file his 

first amended complaint. However, the Court notes that the screening order in this action was 

issued more than four months ago, and this will be Plaintiff’s fourth extension of time. Plaintiff’s 

continued attempts to file an overlength complaint, which the Court has repeatedly rejected, do 

not constitute good cause for further extensions of this deadline.

As set forth in the November 19, 2019 screening order, Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.

Plaintiff is reminded that his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but 

it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to incorporate by 

reference.

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 03/19/20 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

27

28

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify order, (ECF No. 23), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay case, (ECF No. 24), is DENIED;

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

amended complaint, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, curing the deficiencies 

identified by the Court’s November 19, 2019 screening order, or a notice of voluntary 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)); and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a 

court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00784-DAD-BAM Document 25 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 5