Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area (Diablo)

[3] 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-03368-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT/SPECIAL EDUCATION 11 LOCAL PLAN AREA (DIABLO), et al., 12 Defendants. [13] 14 Before the Court is plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson’s “Incomplete & Incorrect First 15 Amended & Supplemented Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Setting Aside Orders & 16 Judgments, Damages, and Other Relief (FAC),” filed August 21, 2020, which filing the 17 Court construes as plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).1 18 Where, as here, a party proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss 19 the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), if such plaintiff “fails to state a claim on 20 which relief may be granted” or the action is “frivolous and malicious.” See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court thus turns to the question of whether the complaint “state[s] a 22 claim on which relief may be granted.” See id. 23 By order filed July 14, 2020, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint, which [25] 1 On August 24, 2020, plaintiff filed a document titled “More Complete & More Correct First Amended & Supplemented Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Setting Aside [26] Orders & Judgments, Damages, and Other Relief (FAC).” Said document, which was filed after the deadline to amend (see Order, filed August 11, 2020, at 1:22 (extending [27] deadline to August 21, 2020), suffers from the same deficiencies as those discussed 1 comprised 198 pages of text, asserted twenty-seven Claims for Relief, and named 122 2 defendants, on the ground said pleading violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure. In particular, the Court found the complaint was needlessly long, consisted of 4 verbose and confusing allegations, and failed to sufficiently identify the alleged acts or 5 omissions on which any particular defendant’s alleged liability was predicated. See Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (requiring allegations to be “simple, 8 concise, and direct”); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.1996) 9 (holding complaint violates Rule 8 where it lacks “simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to 10 whom [a plaintiff is] suing for what wrongs”). 11 In said order, plaintiff was afforded leave to amend “to present a short, simple, 12 concise, and direct statement respecting the alleged wrongdoing of each defendant” (see 13 Order, filed July 14, 2020, at 4:6-7 (quoting Schmidt v. Hermann, 614 F.2d 1221 , 1223 14 (9th Cir. 1980) (internal alteration omitted)) and was informed that “any such amended 15 complaint must ‘state clearly how each and every defendant violated plaintiff’s legal 16 rights,’ and must clearly link each defendant to the alleged injury, or injuries, for which 17 that defendant is alleged to be responsible” (see id. at 4:8-11 (quoting McHenry, 84 F.3d 18 at 1176 (internal alterations omitted)). 19 As set forth below, rather than heed the Court’s instructions, plaintiff has filed an 20 FAC that compounds the deficiencies contained in the initial complaint. 21 First, although, as noted, the Court warned plaintiff that his 198-page initial 22 complaint was needlessly long and instructed him “to present a short, simple, concise, 23 and direct” amended complaint (see Order, filed July 14, 2020, at 4:6-7), plaintiff has 24 tripled the length of his complaint, filing an FAC consisting of 609 pages of text and 25 containing forty-seven Claims for Relief against 222 defendants, including a school 26 district, several local governments, and multiple California superior courts, as well as 27 numerous local government officials, superior court judges, police officers, private law 1 “verbatim transcript[s]” of conversations (see FAC ¶ 99), one of which extends over one 2 hundred pages (see id. at 328:19-437:24), are even more prolix and confusing than those 3 in the initial complaint, which pleading, as the Court explained in its order of dismissal, 4 did not conform to the requirements of Rule 8. 5 Next, the FAC fails to clearly state “how each and every defendant violated 6 [plaintiff’s] legal rights.” See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1176 . Each of the FAC’s forty-seven 7 claims, all but five of which are brought against all 222 defendants, incorporates by 8 reference, as did the initial complaint, the entirety of the preceding factual allegations, 9 which, in this instance, total more than five hundred pages. The majority of the claims 10 themselves constitute no more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements.” See Bell 11 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation, citation, and 12 alteration omitted). Given the FAC’s considerable length and the number of defendants 13 against whom plaintiff seeks relief, such wholesale incorporation of factual allegations 14 fails to sufficiently identify the alleged acts or omissions on which any particular 15 defendant’s alleged liability is based. 16 Lastly, despite this Court’s instructions, the FAC fails to clearly link each defendant 17 to the alleged injury for which that defendant is alleged to be responsible. Instead, after 18 over five hundred pages of factual allegations and a twenty-five-page “summary of 19 federal & state crimes perpetrated by defendants” (see FAC at 532:2), plaintiff broadly 20 alleges, as he did in his initial complaint, that “the foregoing wrongful acts by defendants” 21 (see id. ¶ 502) deprived him of over thirty “rights” (see id. ¶ 502.b) and caused him to 22 suffer more than a dozen other injuries. 23 In sum, “despite all the pages, requiring a great deal of time for perusal,” the Court 24 and defendants once again “cannot determine from the [FAC] who is being sued, for what 25 relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery,” as the FAC fails to 26 include “clear and concise averments stating which defendants are liable to plaintiff[ ] for 27 which wrongs.” See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 . 1 As the Court noted in its order dismissing the initial complaint, “this is not the first 2 || time plaintiff has been warned that his pleadings must comply with Rule 8” (see Order, 3 || filed July 14, 2020, at 3:23-24), and in the weeks since the Court made that observation, 4 || another action filed by plaintiff has been dismissed under Rule 8, see Wilson v. County of 5 Contra Costa, et al., No. 20-cv-4160-WHA, 2020 WL 4901636 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 6 || 2020) (dismissing plaintiff's 513-page complaint without leave to amend; noting that, 7 || “[d]espite multiple dismissals of his claims for failure to comply with Rule 8, plaintiff's 8 || complaints seem only to grow in length, allegations, and defendants”). Notwithstanding 9 || the repeated warnings plaintiff has received with regard to his need to comply with Rule 10 || 8, as well as this Court's detailed instructions regarding the deficiencies in plaintiff's initial 11 complaint, the FAC fails to cure, and indeed exacerbates, those very deficiencies. Under g 12 such circumstances, the Court finds further amendment would be futile. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED with 2 15 || prejudice. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. g 17 18 || Dated: August 25, 2020 fein Chat MAXINE M. CHESNEY 19 United States District Judge