(PC) Robinson v. Leyva ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEONARD SHAWN ROBINSON, No. 1:20-cv-01090-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS § 1983 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 I. LEYVA, et al., (Doc. Nos. 11, 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Leonard Robinson, a state prisoner, brought this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se and in forma pauperis against 26 California state prison officials. (Doc. No. 19 11 at 1–2.) Plaintiff raises various claims against the named defendants, labeling some of them as 20 “unethical conduct,” “intimidation,” “criminal conspiracy,” “fabricating documents,” “breach of 21 duty,” as well as alleging violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 22 4, 7, 14–21.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On September 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint, 25 found that it failed to comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and granted 26 plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or a notice that he stood by his original complaint. 27 (Doc. No. 7.) On December 7, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 28 No. 11.) Now pending before the court are the magistrate judge’s December 18, 2020 findings 1 and recommendations recommending, following screening, that plaintiff’s FAC be dismissed 2 without prejudice. (Doc. No. 11.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 3 the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The court notes first that when plaintiff’s 4 initial complaint was screened, the magistrate judge found that the lengthy complaint was in 5 violation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a pleading to contain “a 6 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader was entitled to relief,” (Doc. No. 7 7 at 3), and that plaintiff’s “myriad of unrelated claims against different defendants in a single 8 action” was in violation of Rules 18 and 20, (id. at 4). Although the magistrate judge screened 9 plaintiff’s claims to the extent feasible, the magistrate judge added that it was “impossible to 10 determine what claim(s) Plaintiff [was] attempting to bring against each defendant.” (Id. at 5–12) 11 (alteration in original). Accordingly, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff leave to amend and 12 provided him instructions regarding how to properly and clearly plead the claims it appeared he 13 was attempting to bring, warning him that his failure to do so “may result in [the] dismissal of this 14 action.” (Id. at 11–12) (alteration in original). Plaintiff nevertheless filed his FAC in December 15 2020 without following magistrate judge’s instructions. (See Doc. No. 11.) The magistrate judge 16 screened the FAC and again found that plaintiff violated Rules 8, 18, 20 and recommended that 17 the FAC be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 13 at 6–11.) Plaintiff has filed 18 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 17.) 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 20 conducted a de novo review of the case and finds plaintiff’s objections to be unpersuasive. Those 21 objections fail to address the issues analyzed in the pending findings and recommendations. 22 Instead, plaintiff raises additional scattered and difficult to decipher factual allegations in his 23 objections, which only further support the conclusions reached in the pending findings and 24 recommendations. See U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378–79 (7th 25 Cir. 2003) (“Length may make a complaint unintelligible, by scattering and concealing in a 26 morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that matter.”). The court therefore concludes that the 27 pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. See, 28 e.g., Kienast v. Turner, 844 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a 1 | case “for failure to comply with the federal rules by filing unintelligible pleadings.”); Schmidt v. 2 | Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir.1980) (upholding a Rule 8(a) dismissal for bringing 3 | “confusing, distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible pleadings.”). 4 Accordingly: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 18, 2020, (Doc. No. 13), 6 are ADOPTED in full; 7 2. The first amended complaint (Doc. No. 11) is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for 8 failure to comply with a court order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a); and 9 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the 10 purpose of closing the case and close this case. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 2 Dated: _ March 15, 2021 J aL A 4 7 a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28