Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00254-4/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

MARK CONRAD FAUROT, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0254 MCE DAD P

vs.

C A TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 23, 2008, the assigned magistrate judge in this case dismissed plaintiff’s

526-page hand-written complaint because it was neither short nor plain as required by Rule

8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint of no more than twenty-five (25) pages in length. On June 12, 2008, plaintiff

filed a motion to reinstate his original complaint. On June 19, 2008, the assigned magistrate judge

explained to plaintiff again that, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading

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). On July 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of

the magistrate judge’s orders filed May 23, 2008 and June 19, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00254-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 08/05/08 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

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that

it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2579243

at *5 (9th Cir. July 1, 2008) (a complaint that is “so verbose, confused, and redundant that its true

substance, if any, is well disguised” violates Rule 8). 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Upon reconsideration, the orders of the magistrate judge filed May 23, 2008

and June 19, 2008, are affirmed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint of no more than twenty-five (25) pages in length in accordance with the

assigned magistrate judge’s May 23, 2008 order.

Dated: August 4, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00254-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2