Olfati v. City of Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 PARVIN OLFATI, No. 2:21-cv-00606-WBS-CKD 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS 15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; CITY OF SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER JARED 16 ROBINET; CITY OF SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER MARYNA STANIONIS; 17 CITY OF SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER NATHANIEL REASON; 18 BARBARA ANDRES; STEVEN MAVIGLIO; JOHN DOE CITY DEFENDANTS 1-100; 19 and JOHN DOE CONSPIRATOR DEFENDANTS 1-100, 20 Defendants. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Plaintiff Parvin Olfati (“plaintiff”) brought this 24 action against Barbara Andres, Steven Maviglio, the City of 25 Sacramento (“the City”), Sacramento Police Officers Jared 26 Robinet, Maryna Staniosis, Nathaniel Reason, John Doe City 27 Defendants 1-100, and John Doe Conspirator Defendants 1-100. 28 1 (See First Am. Compl. (Docket No. 17).) The City and Officers 2 Robinet, Staniosis, and Reason have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s 3 First Amended Complaint for failure to state a short and concise 4 claim showing that she is entitled to relief under Federal Rule 5 of Civil Procedure 8(a). (See City Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 6 21).) Defendants Maviglio and Andres have also moved to dismiss, 7 arguing that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because it 8 is too prolix to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 9 (See Maviglio and Andres Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 22).) 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a 11 pleading that states a claim for relief contain “a short and 12 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 13 to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The court agrees with 14 defendants that plaintiff’s complaint is so excessively “verbose, 15 confusing, and almost entirely conclusory” that it violates Rule 16 8(a). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 17 674 (9th Cir. 1981). The incident giving rise to this lawsuit 18 appears to be relatively straight forward -- a single altercation 19 between plaintiff, her neighbors, and the police resulting in 20 alleged violations of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 21 1983. (See City Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) Nevertheless, 22 plaintiff’s initial complaint was 322 pages. (See Compl.) 23 (Docket No. 1.) She then filed a First Amended Complaint which 24 totals 566 pages and over 1100 paragraphs. (See generally First 25 Am. Compl.) The First Amended Complaint is excessively 26 repetitive, filled with citations to legal cases, and confusing 27 and conclusory statements. (See id.) It is difficult for the 28 court to even understand what claims are brought against which 1 defendants or how many causes of action plaintiff even asserts. 2 “Although normally verbosity or length is not by itself 3 a basis for dismissing a complaint,” the Ninth Circuit has never 4 held that a pleading may be of unlimited length and opacity. See 5 Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 6 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has 7 emphasized that “[o]ur district courts are busy enough without 8 having to penetrate a tome approaching the magnitude of War and 9 Peace to discern a plaintiff’s claims and allegations.” Id. 10 This is particularly salient in the Eastern District of 11 California, which is in a state of “judicial emergency” due to 12 the judicial vacancies on the court that have not been filled and 13 the sheer volume of cases filed within this district. See In re 14 Approval of the Judicial Emergency Decl. in the E. Dist. of Cal., 15 956 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. Judicial Council 2020). The court will 16 therefore grant defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 8 but 17 will give plaintiff leave to amend. 18 The court is not going to succumb to the strong 19 temptation to impose page limits in this case. However, in 20 considering plaintiff’s amended complaint, counsel is admonished 21 that unnecessarily lengthy filings are unlikely to comply with 22 the requirement of a short and plain statement under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court does not have the unlimited 24 capacity to read an infinite number of pages in any case. 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motions to 26 dismiss (Docket Nos. 21, 22) are GRANTED. The July 12, 2021 27 hearing on said motions are VACATED. Plaintiff has twenty days 28 from the date this Order is signed to file an amended complaint, 1 if she can do so consistent with this Order. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 3 | Dated: June 30, 2021 A (A. WILLIAM B. SHUBB 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28