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: MOTION 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; City 18 of Sacramento Fire Captain Stephen Mayer; Barbara Andres; 19 and Steven Maviglio, 20 Defendants. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Defendants City of Sacramento (“the City”); Sacramento 24 Police Officers Jared Robinet, Maryna Stanionis, and Nathaniel 25 Reason; Sacramento Fire Captain Stephen Mayer; Barbara Andres, 26 and Steven Maviglio move to dismiss plaintiff’s Third Amended 27 Complaint for, among other reasons, failure to state a short and 28 concise claim showing that she is entitled to relief under 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (See City Mot. to Dismiss 2 (Docket No. 56); Maviglio and Andres Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 3 55).) 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a 5 pleading that states a claim for relief contain “a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 7 to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As this court has 8 observed twice previously, the incident giving rise to this 9 lawsuit appears to be relatively straightforward. Nevertheless, 10 plaintiff continues to file complaints that are excessively 11 “verbose, confusing and conclusory.” Nevijel v. N. Coast Life 12 Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff’s initial 13 complaint was 322 pages. The First Amended Complaint totaled 566 14 pages, and was filled with confusing, repetitive, and conclusory 15 statements. After the court admonished plaintiff to comply with 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and dismissed the First Amended 17 Complaint (Docket No. 30), plaintiff filed a Second Amended 18 Complaint totaling 227 pages which the court dismissed because it 19 was “equally as verbose, confusing, prolix, excessive, and 20 duplicative as its two predecessors.” (Docket No. 50). 21 After the court admonished plaintiff twice already that 22 “unnecessarily lengthy flings are unlikely to comply with the 23 requirement of a short and plain statement under Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 8(a),” (Docket Nos. 30, 50), plaintiff has now 25 filed a Third Amended Complaint, but failed to make any 26 substantial changes based on the court’s previous orders. 27 Plaintiff cites Hearns v. San Bernandino Police 28 Department, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008), for the 1 proposition that the court cannot dismiss a complaint based on 2 length. However, the Ninth Circuit has explained that though 3 “verbosity of length is not by itself a basis for dismissing a 4 complaint, [] we have never held – and we know of no authority 5 supporting the proposition – that a pleading may be of unlimited 6 length and opacity.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 7 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations 8 omitted). As this court has previously told plaintiff, the Ninth 9 Circuit has emphasized that “[o]ur district courts are busy 10 enough without having to penetrate a tome approaching the 11 magnitude of War and Peace to discern a plaintiff’s claims and 12 allegations.” Id. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is not 13 only excessive in length at 217 pages, but is also confusing, 14 duplicative, and unintelligible. Therefore, the court will again 15 grant defendants’ motions to dismiss.1 Though the court has 16 already given plaintiff two opportunities to comply with its 17 order, the court will give plaintiff further leave to amend one 18 last time. 19 Although the court previously stated that it would not 20 succumb to the strong temptation to impose a page limit on 21 plaintiff’s amended complaint, given plaintiff’s disregard of the 22 court’s admonishments, the court will now do so. Accordingly, 23 the court now places a 40-page limit on plaintiff’s next amended 24 complaint. This page limit is based on limits that other judges 25 routinely place. See e.g., Bittaker v. Rushen, 978 F.2d 714 (9th 26 1 Because the court dismisses the complaint under Rule 27 8(a), it does not address defendants’ other grounds for dismissal. 28 eee eee ee IRIE RII IN IER OIE OS ISIE EI NO 1 Cir. Oct. 29, 1992) (upholding dismissal after plaintiff failed 2 to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the court’s 3 40-page limit); Sloan v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 4] 2018 WL 3769382, No. 2:15-cv-1921 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) 5 (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint after failure to comply with 6 the 25-page limit the court had placed on plaintiff); Sameer v. 7 | Right Moves 4 U, 2018 WL 2318331, No. 1:17-cv-886 AWI-EPG (E.D. 8 Cal. May 22, 2018) (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint after 9 failure to comply with 50-page limit). The court strongly 10 cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the page limit, 11 this Order, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 may result in 12 dismissal with prejudice. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motions to 14 dismiss (Docket Nos. 55, 56) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Third 15 | Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has twenty day from 16 | the date this order is signed to file an amended complaint, if 17 she can do so consistent with this Order. 18 | Dated: November 8, 2021 bet¢ ak. 1d 19 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28