Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00646/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00646-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

KIMBERLY R. OLSON, No. 2:15-cv-0646-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and a motion to transfer to another judge (Doc. 4). 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must

1

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 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

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter

. . . .” Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although a pro se

litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those

pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice

of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” ” Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). While “[s]pecific facts are not

necessary; the statement [of facts] need . . . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim

is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

(2007) (internal quotes omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, see id., and construe the pleading in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this action against several defendants, including the Hornbrook

Community Services District (HCSD), the officers and agents of HCSD, legal counsel for

HCSD, and water customers of HCSD. Generally, plaintiff alleges HCSD officers and agents are

2

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 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

not conducting business in a proper manner. Her claims range from violation of right to freedom

of speech, to due process and equal protection violations. She also alleges several pendent state

law claims. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. Co.

of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have

now disapproved any heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule

9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th cir. 1984). A plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms,

simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002)

(“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus

litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Thus, a plaintiff must not include in the

pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping,

vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. See

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177-78 (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8

after warning); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm

application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” even in pro se prisoner

cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

/ / / 

3

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 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

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and will be

dismissed as such. Plaintiff is no stranger to this court, and should be well aware that “[j]udges

in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court is

unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters.” Conte v. Jakks

Pac., Inc., 981 F.Supp.2d 895, 899 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Plaintiff chose to file an 84-page complaint,

consisting of 60 pages of background information and explanation as to who the parties are. She

then incorporates all of the background information as the factual support for her individual

claims. This method of pleading fails to give the defendants a clear statement about what the

defendants allegedly did wrong. See Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097,

1104 (9th Cir. 2008); Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This type of

complaint unnecessarily slows the screening of complaints and taxes the resources of the court. 

Indeed, other judges have limited such pleadings to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages. The

undersigned will not set a specific page maximum for any amended complaint plaintiff may file,

but plaintiff is cautioned that the court expects any amended complaint to be limited in length. 

III. REQUEST TO TRANSFER

Frustrated with the length of time the court has taken to address plaintiff’s

voluminous complaint, she has requested the transfer of this action to another judge. Plaintiff

offers no grounds for the removal of the undersigned from this case, such as bias or prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. To the extent plaintiff was attempting to bring a motion to

disqualify the undersigned, the request as filed is insufficient. To be sufficient, such a motion

must state facts which, if true, fairly support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from

an extrajudicial source and which may prevent a fair decision. See U.S. v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d

735, 740-41 (1976). The Supreme Court in Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot

constitute the necessary showing of bias or prejudice. See Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22,

34 (1922). There are simply no grounds on which to grant plaintiff’s request.

/ / / 

4

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 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

IV. CONCLUSION

It is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, and plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff is

cautioned, however, that the specificity requirement must be viewed with Rule 8’s requirements

of simplicity, directness, and clarity. Even Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for fraud “is

not an invitation to disregard Rule 8’s requirement[s].” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

(9th Cir. 1996). 

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

5

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 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

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure within 30 days of the date of service of this order; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer (Doc. 4) is denied.

DATED: June 1, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:15-cv-00646-KJM-DMC Document 5 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 6