1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOE C. VILLARREAL, No. 1:24-cv-01143 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF MATTER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 14 SUPERIOR COURT MERCED CO, et al., CLAIM AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff is a litigant who was previously housed at Atascadero State Hospital at the time 19 he filed the current Second Amended Complaint, is proceeding pro se in this action. He seeks 20 relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes. This proceeding was referred to 21 this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 23 dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to file 25 objections to this order. 26 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 A. Screening of Complaint 28 On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s original complaint was docketed. ECF No. 1. On 1 November 7, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it violated 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1), and that it also failed to state a claim upon 3 which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). ECF No. 9 at 8 4 (screening order). As a result, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff 5 was given thirty days to do so. Id. 6 B. Screening of First Amended Complaint 7 On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) was docketed. ECF No. 8 11. Thereafter, on March 5, 2025, Plaintiff lodged an unsolicited second amended complaint 9 (“SAC”) with the Court. ECF No. 12. On March 11, 2025, the Court disregarded the SAC as 10 improperly filed, and screened Plaintiff’s FAC. ECF No. 13. After doing so, once again the 11 Court found that the FAC violated Rule 8 and failed to state any claim upon which relief could be 12 granted. ECF No. 13 at 7 (FAC screening order). 13 Based on these findings, Plaintiff was given a second opportunity to file an amended 14 complaint. ECF No. 13 at 7. Again, he was given thirty days to do so. Id. 15 C. Issuance of Order to Show Cause 16 Plaintiff failed to timely file a SAC. As a result, on April 25, 2025, the Court issued an 17 order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to obey 18 a court order. ECF No. 14 (order to show cause). An alternative to filing the showing of cause, 19 the Court gave Plaintiff the options of either filing the SAC or voluntarily dismissing this case. 20 Id. at 2-3. Once again, Plaintiff was given thirty days to take either course of action. Id. at 2. 21 D. Return of Order to Show Cause and Findings and Recommendations to Court 22 On May 6, 2025, the Court’s order that had directed Plaintiff to show cause was returned 23 to it marked “Undeliverable, Not at Facility, Unable to Forward.” See 5/6/25 docket entry. 24 Thereafter, the resulting findings and recommendations order issued by the Court on June 25, 25 2025 (see ECF No. 15), was also returned to it marked “Undeliverable, RTS, Attempted – Not 26 Known, Unable to Forward.” See 7/8/25 docket entry. 27 28 1 E. Withdrawal of Findings and Recommendations Order 2 On June 26, 2025, a letter filed by Plaintiff was docketed. ECF No. 16. In it, Plaintiff 3 stated that he had filed “the papers” with the Court, but he had never received anything back from 4 the Court. ECF No. 16 at 1. Based on Plaintiff’s representation, the Court withdrew its findings 5 and recommendations order and directed Plaintiff yet again to file an amended complaint. ECF 6 No. 17. Plaintiff was also directed to file a notice of change address with the Court. Id. at 3-4. 7 Plaintiff was given thirty days to file the amended complaint. Id. 8 On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) was docketed. ECF No. 9 18. Prior to making any recommendations, the Court considers its contents herein. 10 II. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 A review of Plaintiff’s SAC indicates that it continues to suffer from the same problems 12 contained in both his original complaint and FAC. Compare ECF No. 9 (screening of original 13 complaint), ECF No. 13 (screening order of first amended complaint). Specifically, the SAC 14 violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1) (short and plain statement; simple 15 concise and direct requirements), and fails to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. 16 See generally ECF No. 18. Once again, Plaintiff’s pleading is virtually unintelligible. See 17 generally id. 18 III. APPLICABLE LAW 19 A. Short and Plain Statement and Concise and Direct Allegation Requirements 20 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint include a “short 21 and plain statement of the claim” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), and that each allegation “be 22 simple, concise, and direct” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1)). A complaint that is so confusing that 23 its “true substance, if any, is well disguised’ may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. 24 Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t,, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau 25 v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 26 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary 27 detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what 28 wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. 1 Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failure to 2 comply with Rules 8(a) and 8(e), finding that both the original complaint and an amended 3 complaint were “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). Pro se litigants are not exempt from 4 following court rules. See generally Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th 5 Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (denying pro se 6 litigant’s motion to compel discovery due to untimely filed, improperly formatted interrogatories). 7 B. Duty to Manage Dockets in Just and Speedy Manner 8 Courts have a duty to manage their dockets in a manner that is just and speedy. See Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 1; see In re Phenylpropanolamine,
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 NOE C. VILLARREAL, No. 1:24-cv-01143 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF MATTER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 14 SUPERIOR COURT MERCED CO, et al., CLAIM AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff is a litigant who was previously housed at Atascadero State Hospital at the time 19 he filed the current Second Amended Complaint, is proceeding pro se in this action. He seeks 20 relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes. This proceeding was referred to 21 this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 23 dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to file 25 objections to this order. 26 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 A. Screening of Complaint 28 On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s original complaint was docketed. ECF No. 1. On 1 November 7, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it violated 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1), and that it also failed to state a claim upon 3 which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). ECF No. 9 at 8 4 (screening order). As a result, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff 5 was given thirty days to do so. Id. 6 B. Screening of First Amended Complaint 7 On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) was docketed. ECF No. 8 11. Thereafter, on March 5, 2025, Plaintiff lodged an unsolicited second amended complaint 9 (“SAC”) with the Court. ECF No. 12. On March 11, 2025, the Court disregarded the SAC as 10 improperly filed, and screened Plaintiff’s FAC. ECF No. 13. After doing so, once again the 11 Court found that the FAC violated Rule 8 and failed to state any claim upon which relief could be 12 granted. ECF No. 13 at 7 (FAC screening order). 13 Based on these findings, Plaintiff was given a second opportunity to file an amended 14 complaint. ECF No. 13 at 7. Again, he was given thirty days to do so. Id. 15 C. Issuance of Order to Show Cause 16 Plaintiff failed to timely file a SAC. As a result, on April 25, 2025, the Court issued an 17 order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to obey 18 a court order. ECF No. 14 (order to show cause). An alternative to filing the showing of cause, 19 the Court gave Plaintiff the options of either filing the SAC or voluntarily dismissing this case. 20 Id. at 2-3. Once again, Plaintiff was given thirty days to take either course of action. Id. at 2. 21 D. Return of Order to Show Cause and Findings and Recommendations to Court 22 On May 6, 2025, the Court’s order that had directed Plaintiff to show cause was returned 23 to it marked “Undeliverable, Not at Facility, Unable to Forward.” See 5/6/25 docket entry. 24 Thereafter, the resulting findings and recommendations order issued by the Court on June 25, 25 2025 (see ECF No. 15), was also returned to it marked “Undeliverable, RTS, Attempted – Not 26 Known, Unable to Forward.” See 7/8/25 docket entry. 27 28 1 E. Withdrawal of Findings and Recommendations Order 2 On June 26, 2025, a letter filed by Plaintiff was docketed. ECF No. 16. In it, Plaintiff 3 stated that he had filed “the papers” with the Court, but he had never received anything back from 4 the Court. ECF No. 16 at 1. Based on Plaintiff’s representation, the Court withdrew its findings 5 and recommendations order and directed Plaintiff yet again to file an amended complaint. ECF 6 No. 17. Plaintiff was also directed to file a notice of change address with the Court. Id. at 3-4. 7 Plaintiff was given thirty days to file the amended complaint. Id. 8 On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) was docketed. ECF No. 9 18. Prior to making any recommendations, the Court considers its contents herein. 10 II. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 A review of Plaintiff’s SAC indicates that it continues to suffer from the same problems 12 contained in both his original complaint and FAC. Compare ECF No. 9 (screening of original 13 complaint), ECF No. 13 (screening order of first amended complaint). Specifically, the SAC 14 violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1) (short and plain statement; simple 15 concise and direct requirements), and fails to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. 16 See generally ECF No. 18. Once again, Plaintiff’s pleading is virtually unintelligible. See 17 generally id. 18 III. APPLICABLE LAW 19 A. Short and Plain Statement and Concise and Direct Allegation Requirements 20 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint include a “short 21 and plain statement of the claim” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), and that each allegation “be 22 simple, concise, and direct” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1)). A complaint that is so confusing that 23 its “true substance, if any, is well disguised’ may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. 24 Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t,, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau 25 v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 26 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary 27 detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what 28 wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. 1 Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failure to 2 comply with Rules 8(a) and 8(e), finding that both the original complaint and an amended 3 complaint were “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). Pro se litigants are not exempt from 4 following court rules. See generally Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th 5 Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (denying pro se 6 litigant’s motion to compel discovery due to untimely filed, improperly formatted interrogatories). 7 B. Duty to Manage Dockets in Just and Speedy Manner 8 Courts have a duty to manage their dockets in a manner that is just and speedy. See Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 1; see In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating orderly 10 and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to rule of law and delay in reaching 11 merits is costly in money, memory, manageability, and confidence in process). Both the Court 12 and the public have an interest in the disposal of cases in an expedient manner. See generally 13 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (presuming public has interest 14 in expeditious litigation). 15 IV. DISCUSSION 16 In the first screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s original complaint was almost 17 completely unintelligible, that it violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1) 18 (short and plain statement; simple concise and direct requirements), and that if failed to state any 19 claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 9 at 6, 8. Plaintiff was given leave to amend, 20 but he was warned that his failure to comply with the Court’s guidance regarding how to remedy 21 the problems with the complaint might result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. 22 See id. at 6-8. 23 When Plaintiff’s FAC was screened, the same problems were found to exist. See ECF 24 No. 13 at 4-5 (undersigned finding that FAC “suffer[ed] from precisely the same deficiencies as 25 [Plaintiff’s] original complaint.”). Specifically, it was found that like Plaintiff’s original 26 complaint, it, too, violated Rules 8(a)(2) and (d)(1), and it also failed to state a claim. Id. at 4-7. 27 Despite this fact, Plaintiff was given yet another opportunity to file an amended complaint. At 28 that time, Plaintiff was yet again cautioned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order could 1 result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. Id. at 7. 2 Even though the Court has given Plaintiff two opportunities to amend his original 3 complaint, and that both times it alerted Plaintiff as to the shortcomings of his complaints, 4 Plaintiff’s SAC continues to suffer from the same glaring deficiencies as his first two complaints. 5 Confusing pleadings like the ones Plaintiff has filed in this case place unfair burdens on litigants 6 and judges. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). 7 In light of these facts, the undersigned finds that giving Plaintiff yet another opportunity to 8 file an amended complaint would be an exercise in futility, and doing so would continue to 9 burden the Court’s docket unnecessarily. For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that 10 this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply 11 with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without 13 prejudice for failure to state a claim (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1)) and for failure to comply 14 with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 18 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 19 and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages. 20 The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that Plaintiff 21 wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, Plaintiff must reference the exhibit in the record by 22 its CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed 23 in excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 24 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See 26 27 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 28 Cir. 1991). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
3 Dated: July 25, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28