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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Vance Edward Johnson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0776 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

D. L. Runnels, et al.

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action. Pursuant to the March 10,

2005, order plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

Congress burdens this court with the task of scrutinizing,

at the outset of the litigation, each complaint in “a civil

action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Under that rigorous review the court must 

identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 7
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 What is more, the court cannot require defendants to reply to such

complaints without first determining plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to

prevail on the merits of his claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). 

2 A party need only plead in terms that are sufficient to provide the

necessary notice to his adversary, and evidentiary material supporting the

general statements normally should not be set out in the pleadings but rather

should be left to be brought to light during the discovery process. Wright &

Miller § 1281 Rule 8 p. 519.

3 In this regard, the mere fact that this action falls into the

exclusive category the court must screen under § 1915A dictates a strict

interpretation of whether the pleading is sufficiently short and plain. The

undersigned has over 200 such cases on his docket at any one time. One

2

portion of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.1 The court’s

affirmative duty to screen prisoner plaintiffs’ pleading makes

such cases unique. 

The complaint in this action is so prolix and obscure that

the court cannot reasonably discharge its responsibility under 

§ 1915A(a) until plaintiff first satisfies his own duty to comply

with the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires the pleader to set

forth his averments in a simple, concise, and direct manner.2

The degree of simplicity and conciseness required depends on the

subject matter of the litigation, the nature of the claims or

defenses presented and the number of parties involved. Wright &

Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, vol. 5 § 1281 & n. 12

(1990) (explaining that an antitrust or copyright pleading due to

its complexity, must be pleaded with more detail than a simple

negligence complaint).3

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 7
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

poorly-pleaded, 30-page prisoner complaint, multiplied by 200, yields 6,000

pages of material this court has an affirmative duty to review and screen (not

to mention the frequency with which a pro se prisoner’s pleading must go

through amendment before service of process). Both the defendants and the

court must select the relevant material from the mass of verbiage. “[T]he law

does not require nor does justice demand that a judge must grope through

[thousands of] pages of irrational prolix and redundant pleadings, containing

matters foreign to the issue involved . . . in order to determine the grounds

for the [plaintiff’s] complaint.” Passic v. Michigan, 98 F. Supp. 1015, 1016-

17 (D.C. Mich. 1951). The court’s transition to a paperless record system

greatly exacerbates the problem.

3

In reviewing the complaint to determine if it states a claim

for relief, the court will construe plaintiff’s pleading

liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The court

will not dismiss a complaint without first telling plaintiff what

the deficiencies are and giving him an opportunity to cure them. 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987).

But before undertaking to determine whether the complaint

may have merit, the court may insist upon compliance with its

rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (federal

rules apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access

to counsel); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)

(encouraging “firm application” of federal rules in prisoner

cases).

Plaintiff’s complaint violates Rules 8(a) and 10(a), (b) 

 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court is required to

guess who is being sued for what. If the pleading were served in

its present form it would not give defendants fair notice of the

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

claims against them and, indeed, their best guess about the

nature of plaintiff’s complaint may be quite different than the

court’s. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996)

(court should be able to read the complaint in minutes, not

hours, and may consider the rights of defendants to be free from

costly and harassing litigation and other litigants waiting their

turns to have other matters resolved); see also Nevijel v. North

Coast Life Insurance Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1971); Von

Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Commission, 442 F.2d

1047 (9th Cir. 1971).

Plaintiff’s task is modest. He is not required to identify

the law that makes the alleged conduct wrong. A pleader is free

to use his own language to state, simply and directly, the wrong

that has been committed, and clearly explain how each state actor

identified as a defendant was involved and what relief plaintiff

requests of each defendant. Jones v. Community Redevelopment

Agency of the City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1984);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If

he wishes to continue this litigation he must file an amended

complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must adhere to the following

requirements:

A complaint must contain a caption including the name of the

court and the names of all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

More than one claim against a single defendant may be joined

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 4 of 7
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

4 Negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, to

illustrate the simplicity and brevity of statement contemplated by the rules

(see Fed. R. Civ. P. 84), this example of a complaint based upon an automobile

accident is provided:

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, 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 ____ dollars and costs.

Form 9, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5

in the same action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

Claims against different defendants may be joined in the

same action only if the claims arise from the same transactions

or occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence

must be set apart as a “separate count.” Within each count, the

circumstances that give rise to the claim must be alleged in

separate, numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

 These allegations must be short and plain, simple and

direct and describe the relief plaintiff seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002);

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.

2002).4

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

The amended complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to plaintiff’s original complaint. Local Rule 15-220.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Plaintiff is admonished that a prisoner pursuing civil

rights claims without counsel, like all other litigants, is

required to obey the court’s orders, including an order to amend

his pleading. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992);

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002). His failure

to obey the court’s orders and the local and federal rules and

meet his responsibilities in prosecuting this action may justify

dismissal, including dismissal with prejudice. Ferdik, 963 F.2d

1258 (affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s

failure to comply with order requiring filing of amended civil

rights complaint); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 639 (affirming dismissal

with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s failure to comply with order

requiring filing of amended habeas petition); Moore v. United

States, 193 F.R.D. 647 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (denying motion for leave

to file third amended complaint and dismissing action with

prejudice for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8);

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232-33 (9th Cir. 1984)

(affirming dismissal with prejudice for pro se prisoner’s failure

to prosecute); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988)

(affirming dismissal without prejudice for pro se prisoner’s

failure to comply with local rule requiring he notify the court

of any change of address).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave

to amend within 60 days. Plaintiff shall file an original and

one copy of his amended complaint, which must bear the docket

number assigned to this case and be titled “Second Amended

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order may result in a

recommendation the action be dismissed and, if warranted, that

dismissal will be with prejudice.

So ordered.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 06/03/05 Page 7 of 7