Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00702-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond E. Mabus
Defendant
Edward Price
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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 PRICE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary, 

Department of the Navy,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM 

SCREENING ORDER RE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff Edward Price (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

action. On September 2, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with 

leave to amend within thirty (30) days. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter with the 

Court, which included a decision issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission on September 1, 2016. (Doc. 6). On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a right to 

sue letter issued by the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing on September 20, 

2016. (Doc. 7). The Court construes these documents as Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. 

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 

Case 1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, 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). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims 

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which is comprised of a letter, a decision by the 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and a right to sue letter from the 

California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) fails to comply with Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given one final

opportunity to amend his complaint. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the following the 

standards: 

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 

Case 1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

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

As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s filing of EEOC and DFEH documents is not sufficient to satisfy the pleading 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Court will not scour the EEOC decision 

to determine Plaintiff’s claims and allegations in this action. If Plaintiff elects to amend his 

complaint, Plaintiff must prepare a separate complaint that includes the relevant factual 

allegations and asserted causes of action.

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 outlines the form of pleadings required in federal 

court. In particular, Rule 10 requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered 

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

10(b). Additionally, if doing so would promote clarity, “each claim founded on a separate 

transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s letter and documents from the EEOC and DFEH are not sufficient to 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. If Plaintiff elects to 

amend his complaint, he must prepare a complaint that includes separate numbered paragraphs 

limited to a single set of circumstances and he must separate claims founded on separate 

transactions or occurrences. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8 and 10. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will provide him with one final

opportunity to amend his complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

the named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-

79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(citations omitted).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10;

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

third amended complaint; and

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

the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim 

and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 4