Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01671-1/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

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01671-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCEED 

PAGE LIMIT FOR AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has declined Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5). 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 

9). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a court order instructing the prison librarian 

to permit him to file an amended complaint that exceeds the 50-page limit set forth in 

Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15 § 3162(c). (ECF No. 8).

The Court will deny this Motion for the following reasons. First, the prison librarian 

is not a party to this action. The Court cannot compel a non-party to do or refrain from 

particular actions. Second, even if the librarian were a party, the Court would have no 

Case 1:14-cv-01671-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/11/15 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

basis for ordering preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has yet to file a cognizable claim. 

It thus cannot be said that he has shown “a strong likelihood of success on the merits”, a 

prerequisite to injunctive relief. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 938 (9th 

Cir. 2001). Third, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3162(c) provides that the appropriate means 

for an inmate to copy more than 50 pages is to “provide to designated staff a written 

explanation of the need for excess document length,” not to obtain a court order. 

In addition, the Court reminds Plaintiff of the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to be “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff must set forth his claims in a clear, 

succinct, and straightforward manner. It is the very rare case that requires more than 10 

pages to do that; additional pages likely would confuse, not clarify.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to exceed 

CDCR’s fifty-page copy limit (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01671-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 2