(PC) Martinez v. Parks

Opinion

RONALD F. MARTINEZ, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01496-BAK(SAB) (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE 25-PAGE v. LIMIT ON HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING A. PARKS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. (ECF Nos. 18, 19)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A CIVIL

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 24, 2022, upon motion by Plaintiff, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “limit his amended complaint to twenty-five (25) pages.” (Id.at 2 (alteration in original).) Despite this Order, Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to exceed the twenty-five-page limit and his declaration in support of the motion. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint consisting of one hundred and nine (109) pages, inclusive of exhibits. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff seeks to add a second First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff also seeks to add as a defendant M. Lirones, another librarian and supervisor to Defendant A. Parks. Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the complaint to be “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The rule also provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d)(1). Instead, the lodged amended complaint contains excessive and extraneous detail, which unnecessarily lengthen the pleading. As is, the Court is unable to discern whether Plaintiff’s claims have merit. The nature of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, the underlying facts, and exhibits do not warrant an extension of the twenty-five-page limit.1 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to exceed twenty-five pages is DENIED. (ECF No. 19.) However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file, within thirty (30) days, a first amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and does not exceed a total of twenty-five (25) pages. Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the first amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” E.D. Cal. R. 220. Plaintiff also requests a copy of the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Previously, this Court granted a similar motion: Plaintiff’s motion for copies of his submitted motions (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. This is a one-time allowance, and the Court will not again provide copies without the plaintiff prepaying the cost. He is urged to obtain copies of his documents before filing if he wishes to have them. (ECF No. 13 (emphasis added).) Moreover, under the Court’s Standing Order In re: Procedural Rules for Electronic Submission of Prisoner Litigation filed by Plaintiffs Incarcerated at Participating Penal Institutions, filed on March 1, 2016, “Because the original civil complaint and [attachments] will be returned to the incarcerated plaintiff as after being scanned and emailed, the Court and CDCR are not required to provide the incarcerated plaintiff with any filed stamped copies of the documents filed by the plaintiff.” Jd. After the initial filing, all other documents are sent and served by mail. /d. Il. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's lodged first amended complaint is inappropriate for filing, and he is not entitled to a mailed copy of this document. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion for copy of first amended complaint, (ECF No. 18), is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff's motion to exceed the twenty-five-page limit, (ECF No. 19), is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff shall file, within thirty (30) days, a first amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and does not exceed a total of twenty-five (25) pages. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation for dismissal of this case. 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Civil Rights Complaint form. ITIS SO ORDERED. Al (re Dated: _ April 5, 2022 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE