(PC) Swafford v. Neuschmid ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEE SWAFFORD, No. 2:19-CV-2269-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 4). 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 As discussed above, Rule 8 requires a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the 7 claim. Plaintiff’s complaint refers to nearly one hundred pages of attached documents which 8 purportedly support the factual allegations against the defendants. Furthermore, the complaint is 9 unclear regarding how plaintiff’s due process rights were allegedly violated. Within the 10 complaint’s single claim, plaintiff alleges improper exclusion from parole consideration while 11 actually being scheduled to appear before the parole board for early parole consideration on 12 February 19, 2019. See ECF No. 4 at 20. Additionally, plaintiff expresses his intent to petition 13 for writ of habeas corpus. See id. at 16. This pleading method does not satisfy the requirement of 14 Rule 8(a) that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. To the contrary, plaintiff’s 15 complaint would require the Court to comb through a hundred pages of documents in order to 16 determine whether plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted. The Court is 17 unwilling to do this in part due to limited judicial resources but also because it is for plaintiff – 18 not the Court – to formulate his claims in a way that satisfies the rules. 19 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to 20 file an amended complaint that satisfies the requirements of Rule 8, and is timely filed within the 21 time specified herein, may result in dismissal of the entire action. See Local Rule 110. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / wOAOe 2 LUV MUU OI ee AY VM VIG 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is dismissed with leave to 3 | amend; and 4 2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date 5 | of this order. 6 7 8 | Dated: June 12, 2020 Ssvcqo_ ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28