Scotty Lee White v. Susan E. Bindler, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California strikes three unauthorized amended complaints, dismisses the operative amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and grants leave to amend. The court denies several pending motions as moot, directs the plaintiff not to file additional documents until amending the complaint, and continues the case management conference.

Holdings

1. A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within the time specified by Rule 15(a), but subsequent amendments require the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. Because White obtained neither for the later amendments, the complaints at ECF Nos. 36, 43, and 46 were properly stricken.
2. A complaint that is excessively long, confusing, redundant, irrelevant, or conclusory and does not provide a short and plain statement of jurisdiction, the claims, and the requested relief fails to comply with Rule 8 and may be dismissed sua sponte.
3. After dismissing the Rule 8-deficient complaint, the court granted White leave to file a compliant amended complaint within 21 days or advise the court that he did not intend to amend.
4. The court denied the specified pending motions as moot because the operative pleading had been dismissed and no operative pleading remained.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaints filed after the first amendment were authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 without written consent or leave of court.
2. Whether the operative amended complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
3. Whether the pending motions should be denied as moot because the operative pleading was dismissed.

Disposition

other