Derello 37292 v. McAdorey

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 23, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05884·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Douglas W. Derello, No. CV 19-05884-PHX-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 McAdorey, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas W. Derello, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 17 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a January 15, 2020 Order, the Court gave 18 Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application to 19 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff paid the filing and administrative fees. In a March 9, 21 2020 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. 22 The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 23 identified in the Order. 24 On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Explain Reason for Not Using 25 Court Issued Document (Doc. 8) and a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court will 26 grant the Motion to Explain and will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to 27 amend. 28 . . . . 1 I. Motion to Explain 2 In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he did not use the court-approved form because 3 the “only legible way [for him] to communicate is through the Court Order use of a 4 computer.” To the extent Plaintiff is requesting the Court accept his First Amended 5 Complaint despite it not being on the court-approved form, the Court will grant his Motion. 6 In all other respects, the Court will deny his Motion. 7 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 8 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 9 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 10 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 11 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 12 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 13 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 14 First, the First Amended Complaint does not comply with Rule 7.1(b) of the Local 15 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “[t]he body of all documents shall be typed 16 double-spaced and shall not exceed 28 lines per page.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff’s 17 First Amended Complaint contains 35 lines per page. 18 Second, the First Amended Complaint does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal 19 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a 20 “short and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation must 21 be simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of 22 action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 23 statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. 24 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 25 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 Counts One through Three of the First Amended Complaint are all based on the 27 same facts. In Counts Two and Three, Plaintiff simply indicates that the facts in support 28 of those claims are “[t]he same as in Count 1.” It is not the responsibility of the Court to 1 review a rambling narrative in an attempt to determine the number and nature of a 2 plaintiff’s claims and the Court will not comb through Plaintiff’s disjointed factual 3 allegations to determine which allegations support each claim. See Ferrell v. Durbin, 311 4 Fed. App’x 253, 259 (11th Cir. 2009) (“In shotgun style pleading, the complaint 5 incorporates all of the general factual allegations by reference into each subsequent claim 6 for relief. Neither this Court nor the district court is required to parse the complaint 7 searching for allegations of misrepresentations that could conceivably form the basis of 8 each of Appellants’ claims.”); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 9 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” (quoting 10 United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991))).1 11 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and concludes it fails 12 to comply with Rule 7.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8 of the Federal 13 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint 14 without prejudice. 15 III. Leave to Amend 16 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed 17 for failure to comply with Rule 7.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8 of 18 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a second 19 amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail 20 Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second amended complaint. In light of 21 Plaintiff’s use of a computer, the Court will not require Plaintiff to use the court- 22 approved form if he follows the format of the court-approved form. 23 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 24 Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 25 entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint or First Amended 26 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 27

28 1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s allegations in Count Four are entirely related to the conduct of a non-party. 1 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended 2 Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. 3 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court 4 will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 5 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or First 6 Amended Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 7 prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 8 County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 9 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 10 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 11 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 12 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 13 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 14 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 15 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Derello 37292 v. McAdorey, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Derello 37292 v. McAdorey (Derello 37292 v. McAdorey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related