Arocha v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01733
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 RUDY AROCHA, 4 Case No. 23-cv-01733-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH CDCR, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND 7 Defendants. 8

9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Plaintiff’s allegations in his first amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint are prolix 12 and confusing. Accordingly, the first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file 13 a second amended complaint on or before May 1, 2024. Failure to file a proper amended 14 complaint by May 1, 2024, or a failure to comply in every respect with the instructions 15 given in this order, will result in the dismissal of this suit and the entry of judgment in 16 favor of defendants. 17 Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 16.) His motion to 18 waive court fees is DENIED as moot because his application to proceed in forma pauperis 19 was granted. (Dkt. No. 15.) 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 23 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 24 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 25 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 27 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 1 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 3 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 4 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 5 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 7 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 8 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 9 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 10 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 11 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 12 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 B. Legal Claims 14 The first amended complaint is 61 pages, confusing, and raises unrelated claims. Its 15 length, prolixity, and unrelated claims violate federal pleading rules. Prolixity violates 16 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the complaint set 17 forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 18 relief.” A complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant that violated the 19 plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Rule 8(a). See Hutchinson v. 20 United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). Additionally, Rule 8(e) requires 21 that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v. Renne, 22 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was 23 “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). While the 24 federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to 25 give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and the “grounds upon which it rests.” 26 Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted). 27 1 In the present amended complaint, plaintiff alleges claims against different 2 defendants acting at different places at different times, including acts that occurred in the 3 1990s and at prisons outside this district. The acts involve mail mishandling, sexual 4 harassment, PREA complaints, assaults by inmates, and more. This inclusion of unrelated 5 claims violates Rule 20. Federal pleading rules require that claims be based on “the same 6 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a “question of 7 law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In his second amended 8 complaint, he must decide which set of claims he wishes to pursue. He may then allege 9 facts that give rise to that claim or claims, all of which must be closely related in time and 10 by factual circumstances. 11 The first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a second amended 12 complaint. The second amended complaint must be no longer than 20 pages in length and 13 it must focus on one set of defendants whose acts arise from a common core of facts. If 14 the complaint is longer than 20 pages, it likely will be dismissed for failure to follow court 15 instructions. If the complaint raises unrelated claims, it likely will be dismissed on the 16 same grounds. 17 MOTIONS 18 Because plaintiff has not stated claims that comply with federal pleading rules, his 19 motion for a protective order is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 16.) His motion to waive court fees is 20 DENIED as unnecessary because his in forma pauperis application was granted. (Dkt. No. 21 15.) 22 CONCLUSION 23 The first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a second amended 24 complaint on or before May 1, 2024. The second amended complaint must include the 25 caption and civil case number used in this order (23-01733 RS (PR)) and the words 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT must appear on the first page. The second amended 27 complaint must also appear on this Court’s form. Because an amended complaint 1 |} completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his second amended 2 |} complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. 3 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate 4 || material from any prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in 5 || accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of 6 || Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice to plaintiff. 7 The second amended complaint must be no longer than 20 pages in length and it 8 || must focus on one set of defendants whose acts arise from a common core of facts. If the 9 || complaint is longer than 20 pages, it likely will be dismissed for failure to follow court 10 || instructions. Ifthe complaint raises unrelated claims, it likely will be dismissed on the 11 || same grounds. 12 It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court E 13 || informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice S 14 || of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 3 15 || for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 16 || action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). i 17 Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 16.) His motion to 18 || waive court fees is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Clerk shall terminate all pending 19 || motions. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 29, 2024 ' RICHARD SEEBORG 0 23 Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND CasE No. 23-cv-01733-RS