1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CISNEROS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01601-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER FINDING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VIOLATIVE OF 13 v. RULE 8 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, STAND 14 JUAN MUNIZ, RAVIJOT GILL, ON COMPLAINT, OR FILE VOLUNTARY MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, MARIE DISMISSAL1 15 RUSSELL, and CDCR, (Doc. No. 6) 16 Defendants. SEPTEMBER 22, 2023 DEADLINE 17 18 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is the first amended pro 19 se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Daniel Cisneros—a prisoner. (Doc. No. 20 6, “FAC”). Upon review, the Court finds the FAC violates the procedural rules governing 21 pleadings. The Court affords Plaintiff the option to file an amended complaint or voluntarily 22 dismiss his Complaint before recommending the district court dismiss this action. 23 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 24 A plaintiff who commences an action while in prison is subject to the Prison Litigation 25 Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen a complaint that seeks relief 26 against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the court to identify any cognizable claims and 2 dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon 3 which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a complaint include “a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 7 Nonetheless, a claim must be facially plausible to survive screening. This requires sufficient 8 factual detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 9 misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 10 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 11 sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Although detailed factual allegations are not 13 required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 14 statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted), and courts “are not required 15 to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 16 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 If an otherwise deficient pleading can be remedied by alleging other facts, a pro se litigant 18 is entitled to an opportunity to amend their complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. 19 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 20 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the court to advise a pro se litigant on how 21 to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial 22 decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 23 n.13. Furthermore, the court in its discretion may deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad 24 faith or dilatory motive of the part of the movant, [or] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 25 amendments previously allowed . . . .” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Srvs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 26 (9th Cir. 2010). 27 SUMMARY OF THE FAC 28 Plaintiff is proceeding on his FAC, which he filed as a right prior to the Court screening 1 his initial Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The events giving rise to the FAC took place at 2 Corcoran State Prison. (Doc. No. 6 at 1). The FAC names the following as Defendants: (1) Juan 3 Muniz, Registered Nurse; (2) Dr. Ravijot Gill; (3) Dr. Mariana Lotersztain; (4) Marie Russell, 4 Health Care Manager; and (5) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 5 (“CDCR”). (Id. at 2). 6 Plaintiff’s FAC alleges an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim 7 stemming from the delay in treating Plaintiff’s neck pain. (See generally Id. at 5-41). The FAC 8 also alleges state tort claims of medical malpractice and negligence. (Id.). As relief, Plaintiff 9 seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. (Id. at 40-41). 10 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 11 A. Rule 8 12 Rule 8 states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 8(d)(1). To ensure compliance with Rule 8, courts of the Eastern District of California generally 14 limit complaints to twenty-five pages. See Lal v. United States, 2022 WL 37019, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 15 Jan. 3, 2022); Williams v. Corcoran State Prison, 2022 WL 1093976, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 16 2022). The page limit includes the complaint itself and any exhibits, for a total of twenty-five 17 pages. See Rivas v. Padilla, 2022 WL 675704, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022). “[A] lengthy 18 complaint can violate Rule 8 if a defendant would have difficulty responding to the complaint.” 19 Skinner v. Lee, 2021 WL 6617390, at *2-*3 (C. D. Cal. May 20, 2021) (citing Cafasso v. Gen. 20 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). A district court has the power to 21 dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with Rules 8’s pleading directives. McHenry 22 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 23 673 (9th Cir. 1981). When the factual elements of a cause of action are not organized into a short 24 and plain statement for each particular claim, a dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) is 25 appropriate. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 26 Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674. Under Rule 8, allegations of facts that are extraneous and not part of the 27 factual basis for the particular constitutional claim are not permitted. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 28 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CISNEROS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01601-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER FINDING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VIOLATIVE OF 13 v. RULE 8 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, STAND 14 JUAN MUNIZ, RAVIJOT GILL, ON COMPLAINT, OR FILE VOLUNTARY MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, MARIE DISMISSAL1 15 RUSSELL, and CDCR, (Doc. No. 6) 16 Defendants. SEPTEMBER 22, 2023 DEADLINE 17 18 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is the first amended pro 19 se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Daniel Cisneros—a prisoner. (Doc. No. 20 6, “FAC”). Upon review, the Court finds the FAC violates the procedural rules governing 21 pleadings. The Court affords Plaintiff the option to file an amended complaint or voluntarily 22 dismiss his Complaint before recommending the district court dismiss this action. 23 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 24 A plaintiff who commences an action while in prison is subject to the Prison Litigation 25 Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen a complaint that seeks relief 26 against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the court to identify any cognizable claims and 2 dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon 3 which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a complaint include “a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 7 Nonetheless, a claim must be facially plausible to survive screening. This requires sufficient 8 factual detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 9 misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 10 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 11 sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 12 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Although detailed factual allegations are not 13 required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 14 statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted), and courts “are not required 15 to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 16 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 If an otherwise deficient pleading can be remedied by alleging other facts, a pro se litigant 18 is entitled to an opportunity to amend their complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. 19 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 20 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the court to advise a pro se litigant on how 21 to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial 22 decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 23 n.13. Furthermore, the court in its discretion may deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad 24 faith or dilatory motive of the part of the movant, [or] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 25 amendments previously allowed . . . .” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Srvs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 26 (9th Cir. 2010). 27 SUMMARY OF THE FAC 28 Plaintiff is proceeding on his FAC, which he filed as a right prior to the Court screening 1 his initial Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The events giving rise to the FAC took place at 2 Corcoran State Prison. (Doc. No. 6 at 1). The FAC names the following as Defendants: (1) Juan 3 Muniz, Registered Nurse; (2) Dr. Ravijot Gill; (3) Dr. Mariana Lotersztain; (4) Marie Russell, 4 Health Care Manager; and (5) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 5 (“CDCR”). (Id. at 2). 6 Plaintiff’s FAC alleges an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim 7 stemming from the delay in treating Plaintiff’s neck pain. (See generally Id. at 5-41). The FAC 8 also alleges state tort claims of medical malpractice and negligence. (Id.). As relief, Plaintiff 9 seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. (Id. at 40-41). 10 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 11 A. Rule 8 12 Rule 8 states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 8(d)(1). To ensure compliance with Rule 8, courts of the Eastern District of California generally 14 limit complaints to twenty-five pages. See Lal v. United States, 2022 WL 37019, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 15 Jan. 3, 2022); Williams v. Corcoran State Prison, 2022 WL 1093976, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 16 2022). The page limit includes the complaint itself and any exhibits, for a total of twenty-five 17 pages. See Rivas v. Padilla, 2022 WL 675704, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022). “[A] lengthy 18 complaint can violate Rule 8 if a defendant would have difficulty responding to the complaint.” 19 Skinner v. Lee, 2021 WL 6617390, at *2-*3 (C. D. Cal. May 20, 2021) (citing Cafasso v. Gen. 20 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). A district court has the power to 21 dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with Rules 8’s pleading directives. McHenry 22 v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 23 673 (9th Cir. 1981). When the factual elements of a cause of action are not organized into a short 24 and plain statement for each particular claim, a dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) is 25 appropriate. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also 26 Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674. Under Rule 8, allegations of facts that are extraneous and not part of the 27 factual basis for the particular constitutional claim are not permitted. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 28 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that Rule 8 can be violated when the plaintiff 1 provides too much information). 2 Plaintiff’s FAC fails to comply with Rule 8 due to its failure to state short and plain 3 statements of fact. Plaintiff’s FAC is 71 pages, including exhibits, and sets forth 94 separate 4 averments of facts. The statements of fact in the FAC are anything but short and plain. The FAC 5 contains a diary-like recitation of transgressions by Defendants spanning a 78-day period, from 6 December 22, 2021 to February 16, 2022. Additionally, various averments of facts incorporate 7 by reference previous averments, which directly violates Rule 8’s requirement to state short and 8 plain statements. Not only does the FAC violate Rule 8 due to its failure to set forth short and 9 plain facts, the FAC includes 28 pages of attachments, which contain handwritten notes by 10 Plaintiff in an apparent attempt to explain the relevance of the document. 11 A court has discretion to dismiss a complaint due to its failure to comply with Rule 8. 12 Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, if they are scattered throughout the 13 complaint and are not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for 14 failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178. “The propriety of dismissal 15 for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without 16 merit.” Id. at 1179. And it is not the responsibility of this already overburdened Court “to scour 17 through a set of voluminous documents attached to [a] complaint and articulate a case for [the 18 plaintiff].” See North v. Mirra, 2014 WL 345303, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2014); see also 19 Fairfield v. Khoo, 2021 WL 1178261, at *1-*2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021). 20 Due to length of the FAC and the materials attached, the Court cannot discern if any of 21 Plaintiff’s claims are cognizable and cannot evaluate the merits of each induvial claim. Nor 22 would Defendants be able to respond to the FAC as pled. 23 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it cannot exceed twenty-five (25) pages, 24 cannot refer or incorporate by reference previous paragraphs or averments of fact, and cannot 25 state a diary-like recitation of facts. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) 26 (affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint, which was prolix and confusing, 27 for violating Rule 8 because it was not simple, concise and direct). Instead, Plaintiff must allege 28 each claim, with particularity, but in short and plain statements that document the alleged act of 1 wronging by each defendant, where and when committed, and how the alleged act injured 2 Plaintiff. 3 B. State Tort Claims 4 The FAC also alleges state tort claims for negligence and medical malpractice. To 5 proceed on his state tort claims, Plaintiff must plead compliance with California's Government 6 Claims Act. California's Government Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity, 7 or its employees, be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims 8 Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of 9 action accrues. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950–950.2. Presentation of a 10 written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent to suit. State v. 11 Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (Cal. 2004); Mangold v. 12 California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). If Plaintiff chooses to file an 13 amended complaint, he must assert facts as to his compliance with California’s Government 14 Claims Act. 15 OPTIONS 16 To continue the prosecution of this action, Plaintiff must take one of the following three 17 options no later than September 22, 2023 18 First Option: Because the Court cannot determine that the filing of an amended 19 complaint cannot cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will afford Plaintiff an 20 opportunity to file an amended complaint if he chooses. An amended complaint supersedes 21 (replaces) the FAC and, thus, the amended complaint must be free-standing and complete. See 22 Hal Roach Studios, Inc. 896 F.2d at 1546. Plaintiff should use the Court’s approved Prisoner 23 Civil Rights Complaint Form to file his amended complaint and he must title it “Second 24 Amended Complaint.” For each cause of action and each defendant, Plaintiff must allege plain 25 and short facts sufficient to show that the defendant violated his civil rights. Plaintiff may not 26 amend the complaint to add unrelated claims. Second Option: Plaintiff may file a Notice stating 27 he intends to stand on his FAC subject to the undersigned recommending the district court 28 dismiss for the reasons stated in this Order. If the Court dismisses this case finding that the FAC nen nnn een en nnn nen nnn nn nn nnn ee I OD EE
1 | fails to state claim, the dismissal will count as a strike under the PLRA.” Third Option: Because 2 | no defendant has yet been served, Plaintiff may file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without 3 | prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) which would preclude this action as 4 | counting a strike under the PLRA. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e., 5 | fails to perform any of the three options, the undersigned will instead recommend that the district 6 | court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and for 7 | failing to prosecute this action after its determination that the complaint failed to state a claim, 8 || which will count as strike under the PLRA. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. No later than September 22, 2023 Plaintiff must elect one of three 11 | aforementioned options and deliver by this date to correctional for mailing: (a) a Second 12 | Amended Complaint; (b); a Notice stating that he intends to stand on the Complaint as screened 13 || subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss the FAC for the reasons stated 14 | inthis Order; or (c) a Notice stating he wishes to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice 15 | under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 to avoid a strike. 16 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of 17 | time to comply, the Court will recommend that the district court dismiss this action for □□□□□□□□□□□ 18 | failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action. 19 3. The Clerk of Court shall include a blank civil rights complaint form for □□□□□□□□□□□ 20 | use as appropriate. 21 Dated: _ August 22, 2023 Mba o. Th. Bares Back 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 |_§$ —— > Under § 1915(g), prisoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may be barred from bringing 26 | acivil action and paying the fee on a payment plan once they have had on prior occasions three or more cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, □□□ □□ Ct. 27 1721, 1723 (2020); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.2d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Regardless of whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, a dismissal for failure to state a claim qualifies as a 28 | strike under § 1915(g). Lomax, 140 S. Ct. at 1727.