(PC) Kamilchu v. County of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARD KAMILCHU, No. 2:21-cv-2245 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 28, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee for this 19 action or submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) 20 Plaintiff has since submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has 21 also requested a ruling on this motion. (ECF No. 9.) The court has received plaintiff’s motion 22 and will rule on it in due course. As such, plaintiff’s motion will be granted. 23 Additionally, plaintiff’s complaint is also presently before the court for screening. (ECF 24 No. 1.) The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 26 However, the court cannot conduct the required screening as, in its current form, the complaint is 27 illegible. Plaintiff has written much of the complaint in small, compact text. (See ECF No. 1.) 28 As plaintiff’s complaint must be scanned to be added to the docket, the small text makes the 1 complaint illegible. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint and direct plaintiff to file 2 an amended complaint that is legible. 3 Plaintiff should note that the federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County 4 of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have 5 now disapproved any heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 6 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). In 7 any amended complaint, plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, 8 concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) 9 is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the 10 merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 11 Plaintiff is further informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 12 his amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 13 reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 14 prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 15 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Additionally, 16 pursuant to Rule 20 unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits. 17 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s request for ruling (ECF No. 9) is granted. The court will rule on plaintiff’s 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis in due course. 20 2. The complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 21 3. Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order plaintiff shall file an amended 22 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 23 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 24 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First 25 Amended Complaint.” 26 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the civil rights complaint 27 form. 28 //// 1 5. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to send plaintiff a copy of his initial complaint 2 (ECF No. 1). 3 6. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 4 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 | Dated: February 15, 2022 g ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 DB:14 13 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/kami2245.scrn 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28