Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01274-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

ROGER GIFFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HORNBROOK COMMUNIITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his first amended 

complaint on January 21, 2016, pursuant to the court’s order. ECF No. 8. This proceeding was 

referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes 

federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 01/26/16 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

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that “[a] pleading which sets forth a claim 

for relief . . . shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” “A claim is the ‘aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right 

enforceable in the courts.’” Bautista v. Los Angeles Cty., 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quoting Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 189 (2d Cir. 1943)). To 

comply with the Rule, a plaintiff must plead a short and plain statement of the elements of his or 

her claim, “identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of a 

prima facie case,” which elements, of course, will vary depending on the species of claim being 

asserted. See Bautista, 216 F.3d at 840. 

 The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint is so lengthy and given to tangents, 

minute details, legal conclusions, and other clutter that it is neither “short” nor “plain.” 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. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 

649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts 

defendant engaged in that support plaintiff's claims. Id. “The court (and any defendant) should 

be able to read and understand Plaintiff's pleading within minutes.” Clayburn v. Schirmer, No. 

CIV S-06-2182 ALA P, 2008 WL 564958, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008) (citing McHenry v. 

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 143 single-spaced pages, replete with lengthy footnotes 

and narratives relating to his experiences with the Hornbrook Community Services District 

(HCSD), its board members, and others. Plaintiff’s pleading would take days to decipher, not 

minutes, to the extent it is decipherable at all. It presents thirty-four purportedly separate claims. 

These claims do not include factual allegations supporting them. Instead, plaintiff makes 

ambiguous references to facts alleged earlier in his complaint. See, e.g., ECF No. 8 at 132 

(incorporating by reference the “acts as complained of herein”). “The result is that each count is 

replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and that 

any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.” 

Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This form of pleading is called 

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 01/26/16 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

“shotgun pleading,” and as the court already warned plaintiff in its order dismissing his original 

complaint, it is unacceptable. ECF No. 3 at 2–3. 

The court will also recommend that the dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint be 

without leave to amend. Courts must grant leave to amend where justice so requires. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a). A district court, however, may in its discretion deny leave to amend “due to ‘undue 

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 

of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 

F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). District courts have particularly broad discretion to dismiss 

without leave to amend where a plaintiff has amended once already. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. 

Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Feb. 10, 2009). 

Plaintiff has already been given one chance to amend his complaint with detailed 

instructions by the court. Those instructions included very specific warnings (1) to make his 

amended complaint brief, and (2) not to engage in shotgun pleading. ECF No. 3 at 2–3. Plaintiff 

has completely disregarded these directions in amending the complaint. Moreover, if that were 

not enough, the court’s October 23, 2015, order granting plaintiff’s an extension of time again 

warned him that “in order to satisfy Rule 8 his complaint must contain a short and plain

statement showing he is entitled to relief.” ECF No. 5. Nevertheless, he has submitted an 

amended complaint that does not improve upon his previous complaint. Accordingly, the court 

will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend because 

leave to amend would be futile. 

 In accordance with the above, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s 

amended complaint, ECF No. 8, be dismissed without leave to amend. 

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 twenty-one (21) 

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 01/26/16 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 26, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 9 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 4