Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00575-4/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 

ESTER BURNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0575 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 On December 21, 2015, defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate 

judge’s order filed December 7, 2015, denying defendants’ motion for an order revoking 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Under E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders 

shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. 

 The court writes separately to address the application of Knapp v. Horgan, 738 F.3d 1106 

(9th Cir. 2013) to the matter before the court. As discussed in the magistrate judge’s order, 

Knapp clarified that a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) may, in an 

appropriate circumstance, constitute a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As the magistrate 

judge correctly noted, the Knapp court held that “each dismissal under Rule 8(a) must be assessed 

independently” in determining whether it constitutes a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF 

No. 26 at 6 (quoting Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1109). Essentially, the reviewing court is required to 

determine whether a Rule 8(a) dismissal is based on “appraisal of the merits of the case . . . or the 

Case 2:15-cv-00575-KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 03/23/16 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

prisoner’s state of mind.” Knapp, 738 F.3d 1109-10. Only a Rule 8(a) dismissal grounded in one 

or more of the §1915(g) categories (frivolous, failure to state a claim, or malicious) qualifies as a 

strike. See id. 

The court has reviewed the dismissal order in Burnett v. Englehorn, et al., No. 3:97-cv00403 BTM (AJB) (S.D. Cal.), and the orders that preceded that dismissal. Ex. D to Defs.’ Req. 

for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 18 at 77-100. In Englehorn, plaintiff’s original pro se complaint 

was dismissed principally because, while the court described five categories of allegations it 

characterized as “serious,” plaintiff had failed to “make specific allegations as to specific 

defendants.” ECF No. 18 at 79. The court also found that plaintiff had failed to make specific 

allegations necessary to state certain constitutional claims. Id. at 82-84. The original complaint 

was dismissed with leave to amend. Id. at 85. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. ECF 

No. 18 at 112. Numerous defendants were served with process. Id. at 109-10. Subsequently, the 

court held a status conference at which counsel was substituted in to represent plaintiff. Id. at 

109. The minutes from the status conference reflect that a second amended complaint was to be 

filed within approximately sixty days and defendants’ response thereto was due 45 days after the 

filing date. Id. Plaintiff, through counsel, failed to timely file a second amended complaint and 

the court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed because plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint “appeared to violate the pleading requirements set forth in” the court’s 

order dismissing the original complaint “and sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915(a) because plaintiff 

had failed to file a Second Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the court.” Id. at 97. 

In response to the OSC, plaintiff, through his attorney, filed a motion for extension of time 

to file a second amended complaint. Id. The court denied the motion for extension of time and 

dismissed the case with prejudice. Id. at 95-100. The dismissal was predicated on the court’s 

“inherent discretionary power to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court orders and 

deadlines” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and the court’s determination that “it is 

proper to dismiss a case with prejudice when a plaintiff consistently refuses to comply with a 

court order to replead a lengthy complaint to conform with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.” Id. at 97. Based on counsel’s representation in a reply brief that the first amended 

Case 2:15-cv-00575-KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 03/23/16 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

complaint “‘is precise and clear and states as best plaintiff can remember how each of the 

defendants violated plaintiff’s rights,’” and the fact that plaintiff and his attorney had had “over 

five months” to redraft a second amended complaint, the court concluded that plaintiff’s return to 

custody did not warrant granting additional time to file a second amended complaint. Id. at 98-

99. 

The record before the court contains no order in Englehorn screening the first amended 

complaint. Instead, the order dismissing the action describes the first amended complaint as “a 

several hundred page document that expanded, rather than reduced, the scope of the original 

complaint. . . . [and] named no less than 58 defendants for a variety of acts, many of which the 

court finds extremely difficult to understand.” Id. at 99. The court found plaintiff had failed “to 

adequately explain why he has chosen now to seek leave of court to file a Second Amended 

Complaint five months after the court instructed him to submit the papers. Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

contention that he has had trouble communicating with his client who has been recently 

incarcerated is insufficient to excuse the continued disregard of the rules, deadlines and Orders of 

this court.” Id. As noted, the action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to file a second 

amended complaint within the deadline set by the court and for the reasons set forth in the court’s 

order. Id. at 100. 

Although it is a close question, the court concludes Englehorn is distinguishable from 

Knapp. In Englehorn, the dismissal was based primarily on the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to 

file a second amended complaint within the deadline set by the court and the court’s decision not 

to allow additional time to amend. In Knapp, by contrast, the Rule 8(a) dismissals held to be 

strikes followed “repeated violation of Rule 8(a)’s ‘short and plain statement’ requirement, 

following leave to amend.” Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1110 (emph. in original). The Knapp panel 

emphasized the repetitive nature of the Rule 8(a) violations, uncured after “numerous changes to 

perfect . . . pleadings,” in holding that those dismissals constituted strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g). Although the court’s order used the word “continued” to describe what it characterized 

as a “disregard of the rules, deadlines and Orders” of the court, ECF No. 18 at 99, Englehorn did 

not involve the kind of repeated Rule 8 violations present in Knapp. The dismissal in Englehorn 

Case 2:15-cv-00575-KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 03/23/16 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

was grounded principally in the court’s decision not to permit additional time to amend the 

complaint in an effort to bring it into conformance with Rule 8, and not in a conclusion that 

plaintiff could not state a cognizable claim for relief. Cf. Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1110 (“When a 

litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the 

Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant simply cannot state a claim.” (emph. in 

original)). 

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the 

order of the magistrate judge filed December 7, 2015, is affirmed. 

DATED: March 22, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00575-KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 4