Torres v. St. Andre, et al.

Torres · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · August 4, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-2447-JDP (P)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismisses plaintiff Abraham L. Torres’s prisoner civil-rights complaint with leave to amend. The court finds that the complaint is difficult to understand, fails to provide each of eighteen defendants fair notice of the claims, and includes retaliation claims that do not appear sufficiently related to the medical-care claims. Plaintiff is given thirty days to file an amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its disorganized, repetitive, and unclear allegations did not give each defendant fair notice of the claims asserted against that defendant.
  2. The retaliation claims arising from alleged December 2024 conduct did not appear sufficiently related to the claims concerning inadequate medical care to proceed in the same action.
  3. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff was given a final opportunity to file an intelligible complaint complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint satisfied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by providing each defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds on which relief was sought.
  2. Whether the complaint stated claims sufficiently related to one another to proceed in the same action.
  3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed under the prisoner-screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009)(followed)
  • Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(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 PDF
Loading document…