(PC) Williams v. Corcoran State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 1:21-cv-1009-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al., (Doc. 34) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The assigned magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint and found Plaintiff 18 stated cognizable claims against Defendants Pederson, Diaz, and Rios for excessive force in 19 violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed 20 to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants, or the claims were improperly 21 joined with other unrelated claims in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. (Doc. 16.) 22 Plaintiff was granted leave to either file a second amended complaint, not to exceed 20 pages in 23 length, or to notify the Court in writing that he was willing to proceed only on the claims found 24 cognizable. (Id.) 25 Following extensions of time—in which Plaintiff was again reminded that any amended 26 complaint was not to exceed 20 pages (Docs. 18, 22)—Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 27 Complaint which was 25 pages long, included an additional 31 pages of exhibits and attachments, 28 and lacked any signature. (Doc. 24.) On February 24, 2022, the magistrate judge ordered the 1 Second Amended Complaint be stricken because it was “unsigned, and does not comply with the 2 Court’s order not to exceed twenty pages in length.” (Doc. 27 at 2.) The Court instructed 3 Plaintiff to comply with the page limitations in any filed amended complaint or, in the alternative, 4 to notify the Court that he would proceed on the cognizable claim for excessive force. (Id.) 5 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal of the magistrate judge and/or to 6 decline consent to a magistrate judge, which was denied on April 12, 2022.1 (Docs. 32, 33.) The 7 magistrate judge noted that “[t]o the extent Plaintiff is arguing that he is incapable of stating a 8 cognizable claim without exceeding a 20-page limitation, this argument is belied by the fact that 9 the undersigned has already found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint did state cognizable 10 excessive force and retaliation claims against some of the named defendants.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff 11 was also informed: “Plaintiff’s second amended complaint or notice to the Court of his 12 willingness to proceed on claims found cognizable in the first amended complaint remains 13 due on or before April 26, 2022.” (Id. at 4, emphasis in original.) In addition, Plaintiff was 14 advised: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without 15 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 5, emphasis 16 in original.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, request to proceed with the claims found 17 cognizable, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 18 On May 16, 2022, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, finding 19 that Plaintiff failed to obey a court order and failed to prosecute this action. (Doc. 34.) 20 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) 21 Plaintiff timely filed objections on May 31, 2022. (Doc. 35.) 22 Plaintiff asserts his “civil complaint filing was well within federal guidelines and local 23 court rules.” (Doc. 35 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that he “didn’t fail to obey any court orders or fail to 24 respond because the district court’s order is a violation of [his] 1st and 14th and 5th amendment 25 constitutional rights.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends he “responded to [the] court’s order citing his 26 complaints (sic) page limitation is within federal guidelines and he won’t be changing it.” (Id.) 27 1 The magistrate judge addressed only the motion to the extent that Plaintiff requested recusal and did not address the request to withdraw consent, instead informing Plaintiff such a motion should be filed separately and would be 28 addressed by the assigned District Judge. (Doc. 33 at 3.) 1 Plaintiff maintains that he should be permitted to file a complaint that is 25 pages, and the 2 limitation to 20 pages exhibits “bias and prejudice and constitutional violations.” (Id.) 3 Notably, it is well-established that district courts have an inherent power to control their 4 dockets. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 5 omitted). The Ninth Circuit determined the imposition of a 20- page limit—as imposed by the 6 Court in this matter— is not a constitutional violation. See Wolf v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 7 2021 WL 3721434, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2021) (finding the district court did not abuse its 8 discretion in striking a complaint that did not comply with the 20-page limit, and finding the 9 plaintiff’s “contentions that the page limit violates his rights to access he courts and to due 10 process lack merit”). Similarly, other circuit courts determined that page limits for pleadings may 11 be imposed and do not violate constitutional rights. See, e.g., Watts v. Thompson, 116 F.3d 220, 12 224 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Enforcing page limits and other restrictions on litigants is rather ordinary 13 practice. This court has a page limit which is rather strictly, and cheerfully, enforced.”); Lewis v. 14 Florida Dep’t of Corr., 739 Fed. Appx. 585 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) (affirming the dismissal of 15 an action for failure to comply with a court order to file an amended complaint that complied with 16 the page limitation, and rejecting the argument that a page limitation was “unconstitutional… 17 because it effectively denied him access to the courts”). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is 18 unable to show the page limit in this action was improper or unconstitutional. Further, Plaintiff 19 does not dispute the fact that he declined to file an amended complaint after his pleading was 20 stricken. (See generally Doc. 35 at 1-3.) 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de 22 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter— including Plaintiff’s 23 objections— the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 24 and by proper analysis. Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2022, (Doc. 34), are 26 adopted in full. 27 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: _ June 15, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED 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