Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01510-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Institution for Men
Defendant
Michael Joseph Spraitz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOSEPH SPRAITZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1510 GEB CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 26, 2006, the court filed findings and recommendations

recommending that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint which

complied with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The findings

and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On

October 6, plaintiff filed objections. He asserted that he had been under lockdown, and appears

to assert that this is the reason that he could not comply with the court’s previous order that he

file a compliant that met the requirements of Rule 3. In light of plaintiff’s objections, the

findings and recommendations are vacated. 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff is advised that he need not necessarily have access to the prison law

library, phone, canteen or television to draft a complaint which complies with Rule 3. He must

allege a violation of his civil rights and the person or persons responsible for the alleged

violation. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has observed that the Federal Rules require

that a complaint consist of “simple, concise, and direct” averments. See McHenry v. Renne, 84

F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). As a model of concise pleading, the court quoted the standard

form negligence complaint from the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

1. Allegation of Jurisdiction.

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called Boylston Street, in Boston,

Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who

was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was

otherwise injured, and was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great

pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and

hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of one

thousand dollars.

See id. This is a good model for plaintiff to follow in his pleading. 

The court also notes that in his objections, plaintiff notified the court that his

address would change on December 17, 2006. Plaintiff is advised that he must inform the court

of his changed address at the time that it changes. The court is not responsible for keeping track

of anticipated address changes. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 26, 2006 are vacated.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a complaint

which complies with the requirements of Rule 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: October 18, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3