Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it was excessively lengthy, confusing, conclusory, and improperly grouped allegations against defendants. The court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint of no more than twenty-five pages or notify the court that he elects to stand on the First Amended Complaint.
Holdings
- The First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a) because it was excessively long, confusing, argumentative, and conclusory, and it failed to clearly identify the factual conduct attributable to each defendant.
- Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a second amended complaint limited to twenty-five pages, including exhibits, or to notify the court that he wished to stand on the First Amended Complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether the First Amended Complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after the court found that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a cognizable claim.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Brosnahan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 765 F. App'x 173, 174 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished)(followed)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…