Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02688/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02688-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2688 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to 

comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.) Before the court is plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed July 8, 2014. (ECF No. 30.)

In screening the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the undersigned finds that it fails 

to cure the defects of the previous complaint. In his sixty-eight pages of allegations and exhibits, 

plaintiff names dozens of defendants and a wide range of wrongful acts, including unlawful 

retaliation, failure to protect, and violation of his rights to due process and equal protection of the 

law. As a subset of named defendants point out in their recently-filed motion to dismiss:

Many of the allegations and exhibits seem to refer to unrelated 

disputes – some between Plaintiff and other inmates and not 

involving any of the Defendants. Many of the allegations are 

Case 2:12-cv-02688-MCE-CKD Document 32 Filed 08/04/14 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

27

28

2

redundant. Many of the allegations of wrongdoing identify only 

“Defendants,” rather than identifying which particular Defendant 

engaged in the alleged wrongdoing. It is difficult in places to sort 

out who Plaintiff claims did what. In short, Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is prolix and confusing[.] . . . It places an unreasonable 

burden on Defendants and on the Court to determine what is being 

alleged and what is a proper defense.

(ECF No. 31-1 at 5.)

Thus the FAC fails to comply with the Rule 8 pleading requirements. As the court 

concludes that further leave to amend would be futile, it will recommend dismissal of this action

with prejudice. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal 

of complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a court’s order to amend the complaint to 

comply with Rule 8); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 maybe dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 

41(b)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to 

this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) be dismissed with prejudice; and 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) be denied as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: August 4, 2014

2 / rodr2688.fac_fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-02688-MCE-CKD Document 32 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2