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 Stanionis,1 and Nathaniel Reason, John Doe City 27 28 1 The court notes that the parties have used various 1 Defendants 1-100, and John Doe Conspirator Defendants 1-100. 2 (See Second Am. Compl. (Docket No. 32).) The court previously 3 dismissed plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to 4 state a short and concise claim showing that she is entitled to 5 relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Docket No. 6 30.) The court admonished that “unnecessarily lengthy filings 7 are unlikely to comply with the requirement of a short and plain 8 statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).” 9 The City, Officers Robinet, Stanionis, and Reason, and 10 Andres and Maviglio have now moved to dismiss plaintiff’s Second 11 Amended Complaint for failure to state a short and concise claim 12 showing that she is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure 8(a). (See City Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 41); 14 Maviglio and Andres Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 40).) 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a 16 pleading that states a claim for relief contain “a short and 17 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 18 to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The court agrees with 19 defendants that plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is so 20 excessively “verbose, confusing, and almost entirely conclusory” 21 that it violates Rule 8(a). See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. 22 Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). The incident giving rise 23 to this lawsuit appears to be relatively straightforward -- a 24 single altercation between plaintiff, her neighbors, and the 25 police resulting in alleged violations of her civil rights 26 27 spellings for this defendant, and it is not clear which spelling is correct. The court uses the spelling set forth in the Second 28 Amended Complaint. 1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See City Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) 2 Nevertheless, plaintiff’s initial complaint was 322 pages. (See 3 Compl.) (Docket No. 1.) She then filed a First Amended Complaint 4 which totaled 566 pages and over 1100 paragraphs. (See generally 5 First Am. Compl.) (Docket No. 17.) The First Amended Complaint 6 was excessively repetitive, filled with citations to legal cases, 7 and confusing and conclusory statements. (See id.) Despite the 8 court’s order admonishing plaintiff to comply with Federal Rule 9 of Civil Procedure 8(a), plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 10 totals 227 pages. (See generally Second Am. Compl.) It is 11 equally as verbose, confusing, conclusory, prolix, excessive, and 12 duplicative as its two predecessors. 13 “Although normally verbosity or length is not by itself 14 a basis for dismissing a complaint,” the Ninth Circuit has never 15 held that a pleading may be of unlimited length and opacity. See 16 Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 17 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has 18 emphasized that “[o]ur district courts are busy enough without 19 having to penetrate a tome approaching the magnitude of War and 20 Peace to discern a plaintiff’s claims and allegations.” Id. As 21 the court has already mentioned, this is particularly salient in 22 the Eastern District of California, which is in a state of 23 “judicial emergency” due to the judicial vacancies on the court 24 that have not been filled and the sheer volume of cases filed 25 within this district. See In re Approval of the Judicial 26 Emergency Decl. in the E. Dist. of Cal., 956 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 27 Judicial Council 2020). The court will therefore grant 28 defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 8 but will give ene eee eee IIE IIE OSI I OO 1} plaintiff further leave to amend.? 2 The court will resist the temptation to place a page 3 limit on plaintiff’s amended complaint but again strongly 4 admonishes counsel that unnecessarily lengthy filings are 5 unlikely to comply with the requirement of a short and plain 6 statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).? 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motions to 8 dismiss (Docket Nos. 40, 41) are GRANTED. Plaintiff has twenty 9 days from the date this Order is signed to file an amended 10 complaint, if she can do so consistent with this Order. 11 | Dated: September 14, 2021 tleom ah. A. be—~ 12 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | ——— 2 Because the court grants the motions to dismiss under 20 Rule 8(a), it does not address Maviglio’s and Andres’ alternative requests to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6) or strike under California Code of Civil Procedure § 22 425.16. 23 3 The court notes that plaintiff has separated her causes of action into federal causes of action and state causes of 24 action, listing “Federal Count 1” and “State Count 1”, for 5 example. Rather than following this confusing organization, all ° causes of action should be consecutively numbered, regardless of 26 whether they stem from state law or federal law. In other words, instead of having “Federal Count 1” and “State Count 1”, any 27 amended complaint should set forth “Claim One”, “Claim Two”, and so forth. 28