Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05869/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05869-0/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

BENJAMIN S. MATHIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COBBS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5869 REC LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8(a)

(Doc. 27.) 

Plaintiff Benjamin S. Mathis (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

July 18, 2002. On November 15, 2002, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to

amend, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on May 8, 2003. 

On September 8, 2003, the Court dismissed the Complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to

file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 22,

2004. 

A. 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

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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

Case 1:02-cv-05869-OWW -LJO Document 28 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 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

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. RULE 8 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and finds that it is not in

compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which calls for a “short and

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

mandates that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(e)(1). 

The manner in which plaintiff has drafted his Second Amended Complaint makes it

impossible for the Court to discharge its screening duty without expending an extraordinary

amount of time. Plaintiff provides the Court with over twenty (20) pages of pure narrative and

does not separately list each individual claim for relief and then provide a brief statement of

supporting facts. In addition, plaintiff has attached two inches worth of exhibits to which it

appears he makes no reference within the Complaint itself. Plaintiff was informed in the prior

Order dismissing with leave to amend that his First Amended Complaint did not comply with

Rule 8(a) and Plaintiff was informed of the requirements needed in order to submit a Second

Amended Complaint that would be in compliance with the rule. However, it appears that the

Case 1:02-cv-05869-OWW -LJO Document 28 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Second Amended Complaint is even less clear than the first. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint should be short and to the point. Plaintiff should list each claim for

relief separately and then provide the Court with a brief statement of facts that support his claim

for relief. It is not necessary for plaintiff to lay out a chronology of every single factual detail

surrounding his allegations. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to come to the Court with clear and

concise statement of a claim so as to allow the Court to determine whether the facts provided

support a finding that the allegations state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court will not, nor

is it its duty to, wade through a lengthy narrative and try to guess as to what kind of claim

Plaintiff might be making. 

Similarly, it is not the duty of the court to wade through the exhibits in order to determine

whether a claim is cognizable. If plaintiff fails to make his claims clear and fails to reference the

appropriate exhibit that supports the facts asserted in support of the claim, the Exhibits serve no

purpose. Accordingly, because the Second Amended Complaint is not in compliance with Rule

8(a), the Court declines to expend its already taxed resources attempting to sort out potential

claims for relief. Plaintiff must submit an Amended Complaint that meets the requirements of

Rule 8(a). 

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, for failing

to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a blank civil rights form; 

3. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

file a THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT that complies with this Order and Rule

8(a). Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed,

the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an

Case 1:02-cv-05869-OWW -LJO Document 28 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 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

4

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and ten involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

4. If the Third Amended Complaint fails to comply with this Order and Rule 8,

it will be stricken from the record; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file a Third Amended Complaint in compliance with this

Order, the action will be DISMISSED for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)

and failure to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05869-OWW -LJO Document 28 Filed 05/02/05 Page 4 of 4