(PC) Belmonte v. Winkfield ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL BELMONTE, No. 2:19-cv-1189 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINKFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this court for review are plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) and four 21 supplements. See ECF Nos. 11-15. For the reasons stated below, the court will provide plaintiff 22 with a second opportunity to amend his complaint. Plaintiff will be directed to incorporate the 23 relevant information in the supplements into his second amended complaint (“SAC”) so that all 24 allegations are contained in a single document. 25 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on June 27, 2019. ECF No. 1. On July 31, 2019, 27 the court screened the pleading and granted plaintiff leave to amend. See generally ECF No. 8. 28 On August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant FAC. ECF No. 11. Thereafter, on 1 November 4, 2019, plaintiff filed three separate and unsolicited “supplements” to the FAC. See 2 ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14. Plaintiff filed a fourth unsolicited supplement on November 14, 2019. ECF 3 No. 15. 4 Given the disjointed nature of the FAC, the collective length of plaintiff’s supplements, 5 and plaintiff’s obvious desire that the content of the supplements be considered, the court will not 6 screen the FAC at this time. Instead, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a single 7 document that contains all pertinent information. To assist plaintiff in preparing a Second 8 Amended Complaint, the court provides the following information. 9 II. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiff’s FAC is rambling and unfocused. The claims asserted are similar to those in the 11 original June 2019 complaint, and plaintiff also identifies incidents that have occurred since he 12 filed the original complaint. Compare ECF No. 1, with ECF No. 11. The FAC also names some 13 new defendants and does not include others mentioned in the original complaint.1 Compare ECF 14 No. 1 at 1-3, with ECF No. 11 at 1-2. 15 At the core of the FAC is the assertion that: (1) defendants violated plaintiff’s rights 16 under the First Amendment when they retaliated against him for providing testimony to the 17 Office of the Inspector General in a case of another inmate, and/or (2) that defendants violated 18 plaintiff’s First Amendment rights when they retaliated against him for filing grievances against 19 them, or, as plaintiff states it, “writing them up.” See generally ECF No. 11 at 3. Whether 20 plaintiff is attempting to raise the former claim, the latter, or both is unclear. 21 Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ collective “efforts are conspiritory [sic] and offend the 22 constitution by threatening to inhibit the excercise [sic] of [plaintiff’s] protected right.” Id. at 6 23 (brackets added). He asks for $25,000.00 in compensatory damages and $7,500.00 in punitive 24 damages. Id. at 7-8. 25 26 1 In plaintiff’s original complaint, he names prison guards Winkfield, Decker, Pendleton, Hang and Lee as defendants. See ECF No. 1 at 1-3. In the FAC, plaintiff names prison guards 27 Winkfield, Decker, and K. Nichols as defendants as well as sergeant Reynoso and appeals coordinator C. White. See ECF No. 11 at 1-2. The court will direct the Clerk of Court to add the 28 new defendants to the docket. 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTS 2 In the four supplements plaintiff has filed since he filed his FAC, he raises additional 3 assertions of ethical deficiency, prejudice, and misconduct on the part of prison officials. See 4 generally ECF Nos. 12-14. He also provides additional facts related to his claim against 5 defendant Nichols. See ECF No. 15. Collectively, the four filings with attachments total an 6 additional seventy-seven pages of documents. See generally ECF Nos. 12-15. 7 IV. DISCUSSION 8 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint include a “short 9 and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, 10 concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A complaint that is so confusing that its “true 11 substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v. San 12 Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of 13 Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 14 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary detail, yet 15 without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails 16 to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 17 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with Rules 18 8(a) and 8(e), finding that both the original complaint and an amended complaint were “verbose, 19 confusing and conclusory”). 20 Plaintiff’s thirty-five-page FAC and seventy-seven pages of unsolicited supplements 21 hardly constitute the short, plain statement that the Rules require. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pro se 22 litigants are not exempt from following court rules. See generally Briones v. Riviera Hotel & 23 Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th 24 Cir. 1986) (denying pro se litigant’s motion to compel discovery due to untimely filed, 25 improperly formatted interrogatories). 26 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the short and plain statement requirements of Federal 27 Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1), prevents the court from conducting the substantive 28 screening that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires. For this reason, the FAC will be dismissed with leave 1 to amend, and the substantive arguments in the supplements will not be considered. Instead, 2 plaintiff should add any intended additional claims or supplemental allegations from his 3 supplements to his amended complaint. Facts should be organized under the heading of the claim 4 hey are intended to support. 5 Plaintiff is warned that when amending the complaint, he must make certain it complies 6 with Rules 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). To assist plaintiff in this regard, the Clerk of Court will be directed 7 to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s civil rights form. It is suggested that plaintiff only use the 8 space provided on the form to state his substantive claims. Plaintiff is free, however, to provide a 9 reasonable number of exhibits to support those claims. 10 It should be noted that the court is not required to review exhibits attached to the amended 11 complaint when determining what plaintiff’s claims are with respect to each defendant. Indeed, 12 plaintiff’s claims should be clearly stated on the form itself. The court will not review any of 13 plaintiff’s past supplements or pleadings in order to determine the substance of plaintiff’s claims. 14 In sum, when plaintiff files his SAC, it should be a complete pleading in and unto itself. See L.R. 15 220 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 16 V. LEAVE TO AMEND 17 Plaintiff is being given the opportunity to amend the complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file 18 an amended complaint, it will take the place of the original complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 19 Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) (amended complaint supersedes original). Any amended 20 complaint should observe the following: 21 An amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 22 participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson 23 v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 24 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another's act or omits to perform an act he is 25 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 26 An amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all 27 defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging 28 new, unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 1 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it is complete in itself without 2 || reference to any earlier filed complaint. See L.R. 220 (E.D. Cal. 2009). This is because an 3 || amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is 4 | filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 5 || F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (‘The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 6 || treated thereafter as non-existent.”), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 7 | F.3d 896 (2012). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Clerk of Court shall: 10 a. Add defendants K. Nichols, Reynoso, and C. White to the docket as defendants in 11 | this action (see ECF No. 11 at 1-2), and 12 b. Send plaintiff a copy of the court’s Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner form; 13 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed August 16, 2019 (ECF No. 11), is 14 | DISMISSED with leave to amend, and 15 3. Within thirty days of the service date of this order, plaintiff shall file a second 16 || amended complaint on the form provided to him by the court. 17 Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and (d)(1) when filing the 18 || second amended complaint may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 19 | DATED: November 18, 2019 ~ 20 Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28