(PC) Smith v. Secretary

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, No. 1:23-cv-00526-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR EXCEEDING 25-PAGE 13 v. LIMITATION 14 SECRETARY, et al., (ECF No. 42) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceeding was denied by the District 20 Judge, and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a third amended complaint in compliance with 21 the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 41) 22 On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 42.) In 23 preparing to screen the third amended complaint, the Court noted that it is pages fifty-four pages 24 in length, and includes multiple unrelated claims and defendants.1 (Id.) 25 Plaintiff is advised that he may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a 26 single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 27 1 Notably, based on a cursory review of the third amended complaint, Plaintiff presents approximately 25 separate 28 claims of excessive force, along with several other claims for relief. (ECF No. 42.) 1 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against 2 multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or 3 series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire 5 Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the 6 defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the other claims to 7 determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims 8 against the same party. 9 Notably, it is well-established that district courts have an inherent power to control their 10 dockets. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 11 omitted). The Ninth Circuit has determined the imposition of a 20-page limit is not a 12 constitutional violation. See Wolf v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 2021 WL 3721434, at *2 (9th 13 Cir. Aug. 23, 2021) (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a complaint 14 that did not comply with the 20-page limit, and finding the plaintiff’s “contentions that the page 15 limit violates his rights to access he courts and to due process lack merit”). Likewise, other 16 circuit courts have found the imposition of page limitations on pleadings is not unconstitutional. 17 See, e.g., Watts v. Thompson, 116 F.3d 220, 224 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Enforcing page limits and 18 other restrictions on litigants is rather ordinary practice. This court has a page limit which is 19 rather strictly, and cheerfully, enforced.” ); Lewis v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 739 Fed. Appx. 585 20 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) (affirming the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court 21 order to file an amended complaint that complied with the page limitation, and rejecting the 22 argument that a page limitation was “unconstitutional ... because it effectively denied him access 23 to the courts”). 24 In this instance, because the third amended complaint does not comply with the Court’s 25 order not to exceed twenty-five pages in length, the Court must strike it from the record. Plaintiff 26 will be permitted to file a third amended complaint that complies with Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure, the Local Rules, and this Court’s prior screening order, and given the fact that Plaintiff 28 cannot join unrelated claims and defendants in a single complaint, the Court finds that twenty-five 1 | (25) pages is sufficient to present his allegations. 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 4 2. Plaintiff's third amended complaint (ECF No. 42) is STRICKEN from the record; 5 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file a 6 third amended complaint, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; and 7 4. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the 8 action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court 9 order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 12 | Dated: _April 23, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28