Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05809-0/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

THOMAS HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.D. SCOTT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02-5809 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH RULE 8 AND FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FILE

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Thomas Henderson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action

on July 8, 2002. On April 29, 2003, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for

plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8. The complaint submitted consisted of one hundred

fifteen (115) pages and over four hundred (400) pages of exhibits or attachments. Plaintiff did

not file an Amended Complaint and on June 9, 2003, the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations that the action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file the Amended

Complaint. 

On July 1, 2003, the Court vacated its June 9, 2003, Recommendation. Plaintiff, on

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 30 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 5
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 1The Complaint, Amended Complaint and Second Complaint occupy an entire expando each. 

2

August 26, 2003, filed his First Amended Complaint, improperly caption as a “Second Amended

Complaint.” On September 16, 2003, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to

amend again for failing to comply with Rule 8. This time, the complaint consisted of 69 pages

and the exhibits/attachments were of the same volume as the prior complaint’s exhibits. The

entire pleading remained at least five inches in thickness. The Court warned plaintiff that his

failure to comply with Rule 8 would be stricken from the record. 

On January 6, 2004, plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2005,

the Court issued an Order STRIKING the Second Amended Complaint from the case. The Court

again determined that the Complaint, consisting of now 62 pages (three hundred twenty seven

[327] paragraphs) and over 400 exhibits/attachments.1), still did not comply with Rule 8(a). The

Court granted Plaintiff additional time to submit a Third Amended Complaint that complied with

Rule 8(a) and was warned that his failure to comply would result in a Recommendation that the

action be dismissed. 

On March 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Objections” to the Order striking the

pleading from the record. In this pleading, plaintiff complains that the Court’s failure to process

the case is a form of prejudice and that the Court is required to serve the complaint. Plaintiff also

complains about the length of time his case has been pending before the Court. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has been informed repeatedly that this Court is required to SCREEN complaints. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In order to carry out its screening function, the Court must read the

complaint and determine whether the arguments made state a cognizable claim for relief. 

However, before the Court initiates the screening process, the complaint must satisfy the

requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which calls for a “SHORT AND PLAIN

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

added). 

In this case, despite the Court’s repeated warnings about the requirements of Rule 8(a),

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 30 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 5
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

plaintiff has made no attempts to make each claim for relief clear and provide only a brief

statement of facts in support of the claim. Instead, he produces an extraordinarily lengthy

narrative detailing every minutia of the circumstances surrounding his claim, whatever they

might be. As plaintiff has been informed, the Court cannot glean what claims for relief might lay

hidden in the narration provided by plaintiff and it is plaintiff’s responsibility to make each claim

clear and provide only a short statement of facts supporting that claim. Despite this Court’s

repeated efforts to educate Plaintiff on the requirements of Rule 8(a), Plaintiff has chosen to

disregard the Court’s instruction and instead has filed Objections to the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff

is in noncompliance not only with the requirements of Rule 8(a) but of the Court’s order

directing him to file a Third Amended Complaint. 

With regard to plaintiff’s complaints regarding the time the case has been pending in this

Court, as noted above, the Court will not order service until it has determined that the complaint

states a cognizable claim for relief. The cause of the resulting delay lies with the Plaintiff as he

has repeatedly failed, and on this occasion, has refused to submit a Complaint in compliance with

the applicable rules. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 

See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 30 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 5
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

1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local

rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,

46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as this case

has been pending since 2002. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in

favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable

delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The

fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed

by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that

his failure to obey the Court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33;

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order of March 8, 2005, expressly stated: “If

plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint fails to comply with this order and Rule 8, the Court will

RECOMMEND dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 and failure to obey a court order.” 

Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from non-compliance with the

Court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

based on plaintiff's refusal to obey the Court’s order of March 8, 2005, and failure to comply

with Rule 8(a). 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

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

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 30 Filed 05/04/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

TWENTY (20) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05809-AWI -LJO Document 30 Filed 05/04/05 Page 5 of 5