Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01872/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01872-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SAENZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01872-SKO PC 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Robert Saenz, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 10, 2011. The Court is required to

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 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). 

///

///

1

Case 1:11-cv-01872-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 10/17/12 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

II. Rules 8(a) and 18

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not required to

indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Further, Plaintiff may not proceed in one action on a myriad of unrelated claims against

different staff members. “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may

join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as

the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. 

Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort

of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners

pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous

suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d

950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits and

complaints violating that principle should be rejected). 

In this instance, Plaintiff’s sixty-one page complaint sets forth multiple claims against

multiple defendants. The complaint is so mired in extraneous facts and vague assertions that it fails

to comply with Rule 8(a). Plaintiff bears the burden of briefly and clearly providing the facts which

support each claim so that the Court and Defendants are readily able to understand the claims. 

Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///

2

Case 1:11-cv-01872-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 10/17/12 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

Given that Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the claim and the prohibition on

improper joinder, twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits, are more than sufficient for Plaintiff to

identify his claims and set forth specific facts in support of those claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff ’s

amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and it will be stricken from the

record if it violates this page limitation.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint shall be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). The Court will

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s amended

complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, excluding exhibits, and it must comply with

Rule 18. 

In amending his complaint, Plaintiff is advised that under section 1983, he must demonstrate

that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

at 1948-49; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v.

City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th

Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat

superior, as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49;

Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable if they “participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales

v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of

Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir.

1997). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Laceyv.MaricopaCounty,

__ F.3d __, __, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (en

banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,”

Local Rule 220. 

///

3

Case 1:11-cv-01872-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 10/17/12 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 10, 2011, is dismissed;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint not to exceed twenty-five pages in length excluding exhibits; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-01872-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 10/17/12 Page 4 of 4