Estate of Jeremiah Wright, A.W., Rodney Wright, and Ellen Wright v. County of Stanislaus, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, Jeff Dirkse, Gurwinder Singh, Javier Gomez, Colton Dutey, Christopher Gallo, Victor Santoyo, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Wellpath

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 ESTATE OF JEREMIAH WRIGHT, A.W., No. 2:24-cv-02505 WBS AC 13 RODNEY WRIGHT, and ELLEN WRIGHT,

14 Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 17 JEFF DIRKSE, GURWINDER SINGH, JAVIER GOMEZ, COLTON DUTEY, 18 CHRISTOPHER GALLO, VICTOR SANTOYO, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC 19 MEDICAL GROUP, INC., WELLPATH LLC, WELLPATH MANAGEMENT, INC., 20 SUNNY BASSI, IRENE GARRAD, PHAJIKARN TSE, HARPREET BOPARAI- 21 SEKHON, KATHLEEN GARCIA, and DOE 1 to 20, 22 Defendants. 23 24 ----oo0oo---- 25 In an opinion issued earlier this year, the Ninth 26 Circuit explicated upon the nature of and problems caused by so- 27 called “shotgun pleadings.” In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit 28 1 first defined a “shotgun pleading” as “one where a party 2 indiscriminately incorporates assertions from one count to 3 another, for example, by incorporating all facts or defenses from 4 all previous counts into each successive count ... prevent[ing] 5 the opposing party from reasonably being able to prepare a 6 response or simply mak[ing] the burden of doing so more 7 difficult.” Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1288 8 (9th Cir. 2026) (alterations in original). 9 The Ninth Circuit clarified that while “[i]ncorporation 10 by reference is permitted by [Federal] Rule[s of Civil Procedure] 11 10(b) and (c), . . . when it is used indiscriminately, it becomes 12 a shortcut by counsel that violates [Federal] Rule [of Civil 13 Procedure] 8.” Id. The court went on to emphasize that 14 “district courts do not have to accept such shotgun pleadings” 15 because “[i]t is not the job of the district courts to make sense 16 of the pleading, to supply facts to support the claim, or to 17 imagine the claims that might fit the facts.” Id. at 1289. 18 Plaintiffs’ 74-page second amended complaint, 19 consisting of some fifty-two pages of factual allegations, 20 followed by eleven claims that span the remaining twenty-three 21 pages of the complaint constitutes a classic example of textbook 22 shotgun pleading. That it is structured as a mass of over two 23 hundred factual allegations followed by conclusorily-pled legal 24 claims strongly suggests that the second amended complaint 25 “seek[s] to overwhelm defendants . . . and make it difficult to 26 impossible for [them] to make informed responses to the 27 plaintiff[s’] allegations.” A.B. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings 28 eee mE IERIE IE IRE EI EI OIE EID I, ED EE Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d 921, 943 (D. Or. 2020). 2 Critically, the second amended complaint “fails to 3 connect its factual allegations to the elements comprising 4 plaintiff[s’] claims such that it denies the parties adequate 5 notice of the allegations supporting each cause of action.” Id. 6 (collecting cases); see also Gibson, 165 F. 4th at 1290 (“Shotgun 7 —_ OO pleading undermines a fundamental purpose of Rule 8, which is to 8 provide defendants with adequate notice of the plaintiff's 9 claims, including the facts and the legal basis for relief.”); 10 Deerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 11 1234 n.15 (E.D. Cal. 2018). As such, plaintiffs’ second amended 12 complaint fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 13 8, 1 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motions to 15 dismiss (Docket Nos. 77, 89) be, and the same hereby are, 16 GRANTED. 17 Plaintiffs have twenty-one (21) days to amend their 18 complaint if they can do so consistent with this Order. 19 Dated: June 3, 2026 . 20 Ae blew b~-— 51 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 | TOO 1 Although not all defendants raise the issue of whether 24 | plaintiffs’ second amended complaint should be dismissed because it is a shotgun pleading (see Docket Nos. 77-1, 89), “the 29 district court has inherent authority to control its docket and 26 ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which in some circumstances includes the power to dismiss a complaint for 27 failure to comply with Rule 8(a) (2) and Rule 10(b).” Gibson, 165 F. 4th at 1289 (quotations omitted). 28