IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JOHN HENRY BLACKBURN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDY LONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

KING, Judge. 

Case No. 2:16-cv-00570-KI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Con·ectional Institution, brings this civil 

action prose. Cunently before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) and 

Motion for Temporary and Permanent Injunction and Restraint Order (ECF No. 25). For the reasons 

set forth below, this Coutt dismisses Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and denies his motion for 

injunctive relief. 

DISCUSSION 

On or about July 7, 2011, Plaintiff pied guilty to Assault in the Second Degree and was 

sentenced to three-years probation. See State v. Blackburn, No. Al54913, Appellant's Br., 2015 WL 

10944794, at *1(May29, 2015). On or about August 19, 2013, the Honorable Jonathan R. Hill 

1 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 6
revoked Plaintiffs probation and sentenced him to a 48-month term of incarceration. See id. at *3; 

Am. Comp!. at 14, 19. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation without opinion. State 

v. Blackburn, 366 P.3d 847 (Or. App. 2015). 

In the instant proceeding, Plaintiff sets fo1th sixty-six claims for relief focusing on allegations 

that (1) jail officials denied him adequate medical care and access to the law library; (2) employees 

of ChangePoint Inc. mishandled his patient records and wrongfully denied him counseling necessary 

to comply with the terms of his probation; and (3) the state judge, district attorney, and his defense 

counsel engaged in misconduct during Plaintiffs probation revocation hearing. Although Plaintiffs 

claims can be categorized, his Amended Complaint neve1theless violates Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8 because it does not set forth a short and plain statement of his claims for relief in a 

simple and concise manner. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fmther, "[e]ach allegation must be simple, 

concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Although excessive length is not by itself grounds to 

dismiss a complaint under Rule 8 (Hearn v. San Bernardino Police Dept, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th 

Cir. 2008)), if the factual elements of a claim are scattered throughout the complaint, and not 

organized into a short and plain statement, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is proper. See 

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1986); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 

F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-75 (9th Cir. 

1981 ). The Ninth Circuit explained the problems created by prolix and confusing complaints as 

follows: 

Prolix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges. As 

a practical matter, the judge and opposing counsel, in order to perform their 

responsibilities, cannot use a complaint such as the one plaintiffs filed, and must 

2 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 6
prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what. Defendants are then put at 

risk that their outline differs from the judge's, that plaintiffs will surprise them with 

something new at trial which they reasonably did not understand to be in the case at 

all, and that res judicata effects of settlement or judgment will be different from what 

they reasonably expected. "[T]he rights of the defendants to be free from costly and 

harassing litigation must be considered." 

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 (quoting Von Pappenheim v. Portland Boxing and Wrestling Comm 'n, 

442 F.2d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 1971)). 

Plaintiff does not identify the state or federal basis of the vast majority of his claims. This 

deficiency is compounded by the general headings given to many of his claims, such as "Deceit with 

Malice" (Claim Seven), "Deceit" (Claims 19-3, 26, 34), "Conspiracy Against Rights And Or SelfConcealing Conspiracy" (Claims 19-5, 24, 43), "Fraudulent and Deceitful Civil Conspiracy" (Claims 

19-6, 25, 44, 64), Collusion (Claims 19-4, 30, 50), making it impossible to discern the basis of, and 

distinction between, the various claims. Although Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to identify the 

statutory or constitutional source of a claim, he nevertheless must "give 'fair notice' of the claim and 

its basis." Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 736-37 (9th Cir. 2004). 

This Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to give Defendants fair notice of his claims 

because of the prolix nature of the allegations, his failure to adequately identify the basis of his 

claims, and the fact that Plaintiff pied separate claims for relief against each Defendant rather than 

organizing his claims based on the relevant transaction or occurrence. Further, many of Plaintiffs 

allegations are incoherent. For example: 

Then There After, 'Gillespie's' as herein described above Acknowledgement & 

Admission that she [ "AFTER'"' 'Plaintiff's' Attendance To His "47th" Ex Post 

Facto Required Group Meeting, AND "Prior To ... 'Plaintiff's' Attendance To That 

Final Group Meeting, Of 'Plaintiff's' Ex Post Facto RequiredTx 48 Required Group 

Meetings], was, already receipt of "Documentation from 'Hattnett' of 'CPI', In A 

Electronically Provide Communication ["Unlawfully, via a 'Forged' Release Of 

Information"] from 'Hartnett' of 'CPI' To 'Gillespie', A Notification To Gillespie, 

[But "SUSPICIOUSLY" 'WAS NOT PROVIDED TO 'PLAINTIFF'}, {An Oregon 

3 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 6
Lawful Requirement} ... ["With Gillespie Then In Full Knowledge Of This Deceitful 

Act"],. .. Of'CPI's' Notice Of"INTENT" To Terminate 'Plaintiff from Tx at 'CPI 

On 'Plaintiffs next. (and otherise ex post tact or required and final 48th week o(Tx 7" 

[which she too did not notifY 'Plaintiff of, - an inherent & reasonable requirement]. 

After The Above Described Of Receipt ofNotice Of'Plaintiffs' Termination from 

Tx At 'CPI', Gillespie', after 'Plaintiffs request for a copy of same, "REFUSED To 

Provide 'Plaintiff With A Copy of That Communication To Her From 'Hartnett' Of 

'CPI'. 

Am. Comp!. at 10 (errors in original); see also id. at 47-49 (adding incoherent allegations to 

previously pied claims). 

Accordingly, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Amended Complaint because it violates Rule 

8. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint setting forth a short and plain statement of his 

claims for relief. In order to permit Defendants to frame a responsive pleading, Plaintiff shall plead 

all federal claims first, followed by any pendent state claims under a clearly marked subsection. 

Plaintiffs claims for relief shall be organized by the relevant transaction and occunence of which 

Plaintiff complains, rather than by each Defendant. For example, if Plaintiff seeks to allege a§ 1983 

claim for the alleged denial of adequate medical treatment, he shall allege a single claim for relief 

against all Defendants personally involved in the violation. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must allege 

facts, rather than legal conclusions, giving rise to a reasonable inference that each named Defendant 

was personally involved in the violation. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(liability under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant); 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (in order to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege facts 

which, when accepted as true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated 

plaintiff's constitutional rights). 

Plaintiff is advised that his Second Amended Complaint must not include claims (1) against 

Judge Jonathan Hill for judicial acts performed in his judicial capacity (see Mireles v. Waco, 502 

4 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 6
U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991 )); (2) against District Attorney William Poiter arising out of his alleged conduct 

during the course of Plaintiffs probation revocation proceeding (see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 

U.S. 259, 270 (1993)); (3) pursuant to § 1983 and premised on respondeat superior liability (see 

Monell v. New York City Dep 't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978)); or (4) which, if he 

prevailed, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the revocation of his probation (see Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). Finally, Plaintiff is advised thathe does not have a private 

right of action for damages for the violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act. Webb v. Smart Document Sol., LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1080-82 (9th Cir. 2007). 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) 

is dismissed, without prejudice, on the basis that it violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 

Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies noted above, within thirty 

days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall use this Court's civil complaint form and may add 

additional pages as necessary using the same format. Plaintiff shall list all of the Defendants in the 

caption of the Second Amended Complaint and shall not use the abbreviation "et al." See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. IO(a). Plaintiff shall not incorporate by reference any of the allegations set forth in his 

previous two Complaints. 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

5 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 6
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the directives of this Order shall result in the 

dismissal of this proceeding, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion 

for injunctive relief (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Comt is directed to send Plaintiff 

a civil complaint form with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this (p day of Januaiy, 2017. 

4~~1/l·~j United States District Judg~ , 

6 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:16-cv-00570-KI Document 28 Filed 01/06/17 Page 6 of 6