Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on July 15, 2015, along with a motion to exceed the page 

limitation, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion for appointment of a victim advocate. 

(ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.) On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel, 

motion to exceed the page limitation, and motion for appointment of a victim advocate. (ECF Nos. 

12, 14.) On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third motion for appointment of a victim advocate. (ECF 

No. 11.) 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF‟S 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTIONS TO EXCEED 

PAGE LIMITATION, AND DENYING MOTIONS 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND/OR 

APPOINTMENT OF VICTIM ADVOCATE

[ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 10
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

27

28

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 on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, 

which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 

sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying 

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations and 

is housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran. Rule 8 provides that a 

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff‟s complaint is neither short nor plain. Plaintiff‟s complaint is 

one hundred and fifty pages long and contains multiple unrelated incidents against two hundred 

defendants. Plaintiff sets forth a series of events that occurred over a period of two years alleging a 

violation of the Equal Protection Clause; retaliation; cruel and unusual punishment; violation of free 

speech in violation of the First Amendment; denial of adequate medical attention; due process 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 10
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

violation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and state law negligence. The function of the 

complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff‟s claims. Plaintiff‟s present filing imposes 

a significant burden on the Court‟s limited resources, and the Court finds that any amended complaint 

shall be no longer than 25 pages in length. 

Plaintiff also submits numerous exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that the submission of evidence, 

by way of exhibits, is premature at this point in the proceedings as Plaintiff is only required to state a 

prima facie claim for relief via his factual allegations. Thus, in amending his complaint, Plaintiff need 

only state concisely the facts upon which he alleges a defendant has violated his constitutional rights. 

If Plaintiff feels compelled to submit exhibits with an amended complaint, he is advised that such 

exhibits must be attached to the amended pleading and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 10(c). With regard to exhibits that are properly attached and incorporated, Plaintiff is 

cautioned that it is the Court‟s duty to evaluate the factual allegations within a complaint, not to wade 

through exhibits, to determine whether cognizable claims have been stated.

In addition, Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as 

(1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and 

occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. 

Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 

623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff‟s one hundred and fifty page complaint sets forth a 

multiple of claim (some related and some unrelated) against a multitude of Defendants. It is so mired 

in extraneous facts, various issues related and unrelated, and legal arguments that it fails to comply 

with Rule 8(a). Some of Plaintiff‟s claim may be cognizable under 1983, but it is not the function of 

the court to attempt to find them in a complaint that is in violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff shall be granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall choose which claims he 

wishes to pursue in this action. If Plaintiff does not do so and his amended complaint sets forth 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 10
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

unrelated claims which violate joinder rules, the Court will dismiss the claims it finds to be improperly 

joined. The Court shall provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that would appear to apply to, at 

least, some of the claims raised in the complaint. 

A. Linkage Under Section 1983

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-677 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed under 

a theory of respondeat superior, and some causal connection between the conduct of each named 

defendant and the violation at issue must exist. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep‟t 

of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

B. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. 

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Hartmann v. California 

Dep‟t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 

1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). To state a claim, Plaintiff 

must show that Defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his membership in a 

protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 

1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001).

C. Retaliation

“[P]risoners retain the protections of the First Amendment” but their “right to freely exercise 

[their] religion is limited by institutional objectives and by the loss of freedom concomitant with 

incarceration.” Hartmann v. California Dep‟t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(citing O‟Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1997)). The protections of the Free Exercise 

Clause are triggered when prison officials substantially burden the practice of an inmate‟s religion by 

preventing him from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith, but 

an impingement on an inmate‟s constitutional rights will be upheld “„if it is reasonably related to 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 10
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

legitimate penological interests.‟” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). 

D. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners 

not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While 

conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the 

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) 

(quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or 

contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the 

Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. 

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in 

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). 

Prison officials also have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect prisoners from violence at the 

hands of other prisoners because being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty 

that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34 (quotation 

marks omitted); Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 

1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that 

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. 

Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731;

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 10
6

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

E. Free Exercise of Religion

“[P]risoners retain the protections of the First Amendment” but their “right to freely exercise 

[their] religion is limited by institutional objectives and by the loss of freedom concomitant with 

incarceration.” Hartmann v. California Dep‟t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(citing O‟Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1997)). The protections of the Free Exercise 

Clause are triggered when prison officials substantially burden the practice of an inmate‟s religion by 

preventing him from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith, but 

an impingement on an inmate‟s constitutional rights will be upheld “„if it is reasonably related to 

legitimate penological interests.‟” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). 

F. Medical Care

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 

“the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

G. Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners against the deprivation of liberty without the 

procedural protections to which they are entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 

221 (2005). To state a claim, Plaintiff must first identify the interest at stake. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 6 of 10
7

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

221. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause or from state law. Id. The Due Process 

Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding more adverse conditions of 

confinement, id. at 221-22 (citations and quotation marks omitted), and under state law, the existence 

of a liberty interest created by prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of the 

condition of confinement at issue, id. at 222-23 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 

(1995)) (quotation marks omitted). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are generally 

limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in 

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221 (citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 

484) (quotation marks omitted); Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007). 

H. Negligence

“Under California law, „[t]he elements of negligence are: (1) defendant‟s obligation to conform 

to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks (duty); (2) 

failure to conform to that standard (breach of duty); (3) a reasonably close connection between the 

defendant‟s conduct and resulting injuries (proximate cause); and (4) actual loss (damages).‟” Corales 

v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting McGarry v. Sax, 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994, 70 

Cal.Rptr.3d 519 (2008) (internal quotations omitted)).

I. Amended Complaint

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff‟s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City 

of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. This requires Plaintiff to 

link each named defendant to some act or failure to act that caused the alleged deprivation. 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure regarding the general formatting of his complaint. Plaintiff‟s complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 7 of 10
8

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

8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall state as briefly as possible the facts of his case, 

describing how each defendant is involved. For each claim, Plaintiff shall clearly and succinctly set 

forth the facts to state the acts or failure to act by each Defendant that led to a knowing violation of 

Plaintiff‟s federal rights. 

Finally, as Plaintiff‟s amended complaint must comply with Rule 18(a) and 20, the Court finds 

that twenty-five pages is sufficient for Plaintiff to raise his claims in this action. Accordingly, if 

Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in 

length, and it will be stricken from the record if it violates this page limitation. 

J. Motions for Appointment of Counsel

On July 15, 2015, and July 30, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed motions for the appointment 

of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court 

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Because the Court has dismissed 

Plaintiff‟s complaint for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in 

this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 8 of 10
9

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

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff‟s motions for the appointment of counsel will be denied, 

without prejudice. 

K. Motion for Appointment of Victim Advocate

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a victim advocate pursuant to Title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations section 115.21. 

Plaintiff is advised that there is no authority for the Court to appointment a victim advocate for 

Plaintiff based on his claims that he has been sexually assaulted, and his request must be denied. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is 

granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a 

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 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). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed July 15, 2015, is dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

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

amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff‟s amended complaint shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length and 

Plaintiff‟s motions to exceed such page limitation are denied; 

5. Plaintiff‟s motions for appointment of counsel and/or appointment of a victim advocate

are denied; and

6. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 15 Filed 08/14/15 Page 10 of 10