1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ARNOLD ABRERA, No. 2:22-cv-01162-JAM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AND ANNE MARIE 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official SCHUBERT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; capacity as Governor of the GRANTING DEFENDANT GAVIN NEWSOM 15 State of California; ROB AND ROB BONTA’S MOTION TO BONTA, in his official DISMISS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 16 capacity as Attorney General MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF of the State of California; AND A PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT 17 ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, in her INJUNCTION official capacity as County 18 of Sacramento District Attorney; COUNTY OF 19 SACRAMENTO; BOBBY DAVIS, in his official capacity as 20 Chief of the Elk Grove Police Department; JONATHAN P. 21 HOBBS, in his official capacity as the City Attorney 22 for the City of Elk Grove; CITY OF ELK GROVE, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Defendants move this Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiff 26 Arnold Abrera’s (“Plaintiff”) eighty-one (81) page, five hundred 27 and six (506) paragraph First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For the 28 reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions and 1 dismisses the FAC with leave to amend. Further, the Court denies 2 Plaintiff’s motion for equitable and declaratory relief and a 3 preliminary and permanent injunction.1 Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 56. 4 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff’s firearms, four semi-automatic handguns and two 6 semi-automatic rifles, were seized from his home after officers 7 responded to a suicide threat from Plaintiff’s wife. FAC ¶¶ 1, 8 67. Plaintiff legally purchased two of the semi-automatic 9 handguns and the two semi-automatic rifles in California in or 10 around 2016. Id. ¶ 68. The other two handguns were purchased by 11 Plaintiff’s wife, but Plaintiff has a community property interest 12 in them. Id. ¶ 69. The remainder of the facts and causes of 13 action set forth in the FAC are not concise, clear, 14 straightforward or direct. 15 As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff claims that after 16 seizure of the firearms, there were various state court 17 proceedings initiated by both Plaintiff and the government. 18 Plaintiff apparently was criminally charged with possession of 19 two rifles not legal in California. At or near the same time, 20 Plaintiff attempted to have all six firearms returned to him. 21 Id. at 15-17. The criminal complaint was ultimately dismissed, 22 however, not all of Plaintiff’s firearms have been returned to 23 him. Id. ¶ 94. It is not clear from the FAC which, if any, 24 firearms have been returned to Plaintiff. 25 Plaintiff’s FAC contends various California gun control laws 26
27 1 These motions were determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for January 9, 2024. 1 are unconstitutional. See FAC. Plaintiff’s FAC sets forth his 2 strong belief in an individual’s right to bear arms and rails 3 against a whole host of California’s laws, regulations, and 4 policies that he believes infringe on this Second Amendment 5 right. Id. Plaintiff alleges “California’s laws and regulations 6 and defendants’ policies and practices have a single goal, which 7 is to repeal the Second Amendment without the approval of three- 8 fourths of the States.” Id. ¶ 144. 9 On September 22, 2022, all parties in this action stipulated 10 to a partial stay of the case, pending the outcome of a motion 11 for return of firearms in state court. Order of Stay, ECF 12 No. 18. The Order directed Plaintiff to “notify the court when 13 the related state proceedings have completed, and whether he 14 plans to proceed with the First Amended Complaint or move to 15 amend the complaint.” Id. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff 16 filed a “Notice of End of Stay” with the Court. Not., ECF 17 No. 46. The Notice does not contain any information as to 18 whether the state proceedings have completed. Thus, the Court is 19 still unaware whether the state proceedings are ongoing or if any 20 pending state court matters will have any effect on the claims 21 pled in the FAC. 22 Defendants Anne Marie Schubert, in her official capacity as 23 County of Sacramento District Attorney, and County of Sacramento 24 (“County Defendants”) seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC on numerous 25 grounds. County Defendants’ Mot. (County’s Mot.”), ECF No. 51; 26 County’s Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 51-1. Further, in a footnote, 27 County Defendants state, “[a]rguably, the FAC violates Rule 8 of 28 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . the Court has the 1 power to dismiss a complaint in its entirety where violations of 2 FRCP 8's ‘short and plain’ requirement are ‘egregious.’” See 3 County’s Mem. P. & A. at footnote 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; 4 United States v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 377-78 (7th 5 Cir. 2003); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 6 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b). Defendants Bobby Davis and 7 Jonathan P. Hobbs, in their official capacities, and the City of 8 Elk Grove (“City Defendants”) filed a joinder to the County’s 9 motion, adopting all arguments, facts, and points and authorities 10 submitted by County Defendants. Joinder, ECF No. 53. 11 Defendants Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta, in their official 12 capacities, (“State Defendants”) also seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s 13 FAC on the grounds that, among other reasons, Plaintiff fails to 14 comply with Rule 8. State Defendants’ Mot. (“State’s Mot.”), ECF 15 No. 54; State’s Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 54-1. State Defendants 16 contend, “[t]he entire [FAC] should be dismissed because its 17 prolix, indecipherable allegations do not comply with Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). . . .” Id. at 4:10-11. State 19 Defendants argue Plaintiff’s “vague and ambiguous assertions 20 require the State Defendants and the Court to sift through 21 extraneous allegations to guess whether relevant and potentially 22 answerable allegations might be hiding somewhere in the 23 pleadings.” Id. at 4-5. 24 Plaintiff objects to these motions. Plaintiff also brings a 25 separate motion for equitable and declaratory relief, as well as 26 a preliminary and permanent injunction. Opp’n to County’s Mot., 27 ECF No. 63; Opp’n to State Defendant’s Mot., ECF No. 62; Pl.’s 28 Mot. for Preliminary Inj. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 56. 1 II. OPINION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2), 4 complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the 5 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states: “Each allegation [of a 7 pleading] must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 8(d)(1). “If the pleading contains prolix evidentiary 9 averments, largely irrelevant or of slight relevance, rather 10 than clear and concise averments stating which defendants are 11 liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs, based on the evidence, 12 then this purpose is defeated.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 13 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a practical reason behind Rule 14 8.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ARNOLD ABRERA, No. 2:22-cv-01162-JAM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AND ANNE MARIE 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official SCHUBERT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; capacity as Governor of the GRANTING DEFENDANT GAVIN NEWSOM 15 State of California; ROB AND ROB BONTA’S MOTION TO BONTA, in his official DISMISS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 16 capacity as Attorney General MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF of the State of California; AND A PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT 17 ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, in her INJUNCTION official capacity as County 18 of Sacramento District Attorney; COUNTY OF 19 SACRAMENTO; BOBBY DAVIS, in his official capacity as 20 Chief of the Elk Grove Police Department; JONATHAN P. 21 HOBBS, in his official capacity as the City Attorney 22 for the City of Elk Grove; CITY OF ELK GROVE, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Defendants move this Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiff 26 Arnold Abrera’s (“Plaintiff”) eighty-one (81) page, five hundred 27 and six (506) paragraph First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For the 28 reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions and 1 dismisses the FAC with leave to amend. Further, the Court denies 2 Plaintiff’s motion for equitable and declaratory relief and a 3 preliminary and permanent injunction.1 Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 56. 4 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff’s firearms, four semi-automatic handguns and two 6 semi-automatic rifles, were seized from his home after officers 7 responded to a suicide threat from Plaintiff’s wife. FAC ¶¶ 1, 8 67. Plaintiff legally purchased two of the semi-automatic 9 handguns and the two semi-automatic rifles in California in or 10 around 2016. Id. ¶ 68. The other two handguns were purchased by 11 Plaintiff’s wife, but Plaintiff has a community property interest 12 in them. Id. ¶ 69. The remainder of the facts and causes of 13 action set forth in the FAC are not concise, clear, 14 straightforward or direct. 15 As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff claims that after 16 seizure of the firearms, there were various state court 17 proceedings initiated by both Plaintiff and the government. 18 Plaintiff apparently was criminally charged with possession of 19 two rifles not legal in California. At or near the same time, 20 Plaintiff attempted to have all six firearms returned to him. 21 Id. at 15-17. The criminal complaint was ultimately dismissed, 22 however, not all of Plaintiff’s firearms have been returned to 23 him. Id. ¶ 94. It is not clear from the FAC which, if any, 24 firearms have been returned to Plaintiff. 25 Plaintiff’s FAC contends various California gun control laws 26
27 1 These motions were determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for January 9, 2024. 1 are unconstitutional. See FAC. Plaintiff’s FAC sets forth his 2 strong belief in an individual’s right to bear arms and rails 3 against a whole host of California’s laws, regulations, and 4 policies that he believes infringe on this Second Amendment 5 right. Id. Plaintiff alleges “California’s laws and regulations 6 and defendants’ policies and practices have a single goal, which 7 is to repeal the Second Amendment without the approval of three- 8 fourths of the States.” Id. ¶ 144. 9 On September 22, 2022, all parties in this action stipulated 10 to a partial stay of the case, pending the outcome of a motion 11 for return of firearms in state court. Order of Stay, ECF 12 No. 18. The Order directed Plaintiff to “notify the court when 13 the related state proceedings have completed, and whether he 14 plans to proceed with the First Amended Complaint or move to 15 amend the complaint.” Id. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff 16 filed a “Notice of End of Stay” with the Court. Not., ECF 17 No. 46. The Notice does not contain any information as to 18 whether the state proceedings have completed. Thus, the Court is 19 still unaware whether the state proceedings are ongoing or if any 20 pending state court matters will have any effect on the claims 21 pled in the FAC. 22 Defendants Anne Marie Schubert, in her official capacity as 23 County of Sacramento District Attorney, and County of Sacramento 24 (“County Defendants”) seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC on numerous 25 grounds. County Defendants’ Mot. (County’s Mot.”), ECF No. 51; 26 County’s Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 51-1. Further, in a footnote, 27 County Defendants state, “[a]rguably, the FAC violates Rule 8 of 28 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . the Court has the 1 power to dismiss a complaint in its entirety where violations of 2 FRCP 8's ‘short and plain’ requirement are ‘egregious.’” See 3 County’s Mem. P. & A. at footnote 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; 4 United States v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 377-78 (7th 5 Cir. 2003); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 6 1996); Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b). Defendants Bobby Davis and 7 Jonathan P. Hobbs, in their official capacities, and the City of 8 Elk Grove (“City Defendants”) filed a joinder to the County’s 9 motion, adopting all arguments, facts, and points and authorities 10 submitted by County Defendants. Joinder, ECF No. 53. 11 Defendants Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta, in their official 12 capacities, (“State Defendants”) also seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s 13 FAC on the grounds that, among other reasons, Plaintiff fails to 14 comply with Rule 8. State Defendants’ Mot. (“State’s Mot.”), ECF 15 No. 54; State’s Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 54-1. State Defendants 16 contend, “[t]he entire [FAC] should be dismissed because its 17 prolix, indecipherable allegations do not comply with Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). . . .” Id. at 4:10-11. State 19 Defendants argue Plaintiff’s “vague and ambiguous assertions 20 require the State Defendants and the Court to sift through 21 extraneous allegations to guess whether relevant and potentially 22 answerable allegations might be hiding somewhere in the 23 pleadings.” Id. at 4-5. 24 Plaintiff objects to these motions. Plaintiff also brings a 25 separate motion for equitable and declaratory relief, as well as 26 a preliminary and permanent injunction. Opp’n to County’s Mot., 27 ECF No. 63; Opp’n to State Defendant’s Mot., ECF No. 62; Pl.’s 28 Mot. for Preliminary Inj. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 56. 1 II. OPINION 2 A. Legal Standard 3 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2), 4 complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the 5 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states: “Each allegation [of a 7 pleading] must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 8(d)(1). “If the pleading contains prolix evidentiary 9 averments, largely irrelevant or of slight relevance, rather 10 than clear and concise averments stating which defendants are 11 liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs, based on the evidence, 12 then this purpose is defeated.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 13 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a practical reason behind Rule 14 8. If a plaintiff fails to comply with the “short and plain 15 statement” requirement, judicial economy and the merits of the 16 plaintiff’s claims may be at risk. Id. at 1180. 17 In requiring each allegation to be “simple, concise, and 18 direct,” Rule 8(d) “applies to good claims as well as bad, and 19 is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry, 20 84 F.3d at 1179. 21 B. Judicial Notice 22 Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of state 23 court records in ruling on the motions. Req.’s for Judicial 24 Notice, ECF Nos. 57, 65. The Court did not rely on these 25 documents in ruling on the instant motions and therefore denies 26 as moot Plaintiff’s requests. See Sikhs for Justice “SFJ”, Inc. 27 vg. Facebook, Inc., 144 F.Supp.3d 1088, 1091 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 28 2015). 1 C. Discussion 2 1. Failure to Comply with Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure Rule 8 4 Plaintiff’s FAC consists of roughly thirty (30) pages of 5 introduction, historical background of gun laws, regulations, 6 and policies in California, the United States, and the 7 Philippines, and scattered facts surrounding the underlying 8 action. Fifty (50) pages of the FAC contain the thirteen (13) 9 claims for relief. The FAC fails to make clear connections 10 between specific allegations and individual Defendants and does 11 not “provide defendants notice of what legal claims are asserted 12 against which defendants.” McHenry at 1175-1176. “The purpose 13 of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for 14 storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal 15 disputes.” Id. Plaintiff’s FAC is “argumentative, prolix, 16 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” and “consists 17 largely of immaterial background information.” Id. at 1177. 18 “Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press 19 release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, 20 conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what 21 wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a 22 complaint.” Id. at 1180. 23 Therefore, under Rule 8, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are 24 granted and the FAC is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants 25 have not shown that amendment would be futile so Plaintiff is 26 granted leave to amend. In the Second Amended Complaint 27 Plaintiff should focus on “linking [his] factual allegations to 28 actual legal claims.” Id. at 1176. nee en enn ene nnn enn nn I OE I
1 2, Plaintiff’s Motion Denied as Moot 2 With no operative complaint, Plaintiff's motion for 3 equitable and declaratory relief and a preliminary and permanent 4 injunction is denied as moot. Silvas v. G.E. Money Bank, 449 F. 5 | App'x 641, 645 (9th Cir. 2011); Performance Designed Prod. LLC 6 | v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00536-GPC-LL, 2019 WL 3082160, 77 at *8 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2019). 8 Til. ORDER 9 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 10 Defendants’ motions and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's 11 FAC in its entirety. The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's 12 request for equitable and declaratory relief and a preliminary 13 and permanent injunction. 14 Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of this 15 order to file an amended complaint. Defendants shall file their 16 responsive pleadings to this Second Amended Complaint within 17 twenty (20) days thereafter. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 24, 2024 20 open JOHN A. MENDEZ 22 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28