United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
This prisoner civil rights action comes before the Court on four motions (## 3, 5, 6 & 7) by plaintiff seeking leave to amend or supplement the complaint and his motion (#4) for an increase in his prison copy credit limit. Action is deferred on plaintiff's pauper application (#1) at this time following upon plaintiff's nonconclusory allegation of danger pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Motions to Amend or Supplement
Plaintiff's motions seeking to amend or supplement the complaint will be denied without prejudice.
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, a pleading that says too much can violate federal pleading rules just as can a pleading that says too little:
.... Rule 8 requires that a pleading "must contain" a "short and plain statement" of the grounds for jurisdiction and the claim, as well as a demand for relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Violations of this Rule warrant dismissal, but there are multiple ways that it can be violated. One well-known type of violation is when a pleading says too little - the baseline threshold of factual and legal allegations required was the central issue in the Iqbal line of cases. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The Rule is also violated, though, when a pleading says too much. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir.2011) ("[W]e have never held-and we know of no authority supporting the proposition-that a pleading may be of unlimited length and opacity. Our cases instruct otherwise.") (citing cases); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that "[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges").
Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Court is confident that plaintiff does not need 24 pages of factual allegations to allege clearly with sufficient specificity claims based on allegations that: (a) prison culinary personnel have continued to feed him eggs, milk, lunch meat and/or a "2600 diet" allegedly in violation of medical orders and in allegedly deliberate disregard of an alleged serious risk to his health and safety due to his HIV positive status, the associated medication regimen, a food allergy, and high cholesterol; (b) culinary personnel allegedly is doing so also in retaliation for his filing grievances on dietary issues; (c) culinary personnel allegedly also poisoned his food in retaliation for his filing grievances; and (d) culinary personnel gave him the wrong food and/or not all of his required food in retaliation for his filing grievances.
Plaintiff need not include, for example, extensive dissertations regarding the specifics of health risks from sundry conditions such as nephropathy and atherosclerosis. See, e.g., #7-1, at 4B-4C and 4H-4J (electronic docketing pages 7-8 & 13-15).
Nor need plaintiff chronicle the particularized procedural history of every kite and/or administrative grievance that he sent or filed regarding the issues. See, e.g., #7-1, at 4D-4G, 4K, 4M-4N, 4Q, 4S & 4T-4W (electronic docketing pages 9-12, 16, 19-20, 22, 24 & 25-28).
Nor need plaintiff provide an extensive literally to-the-minute account of particular incidents in which he allegedly sustained adverse reactions from food provided by culinary personnel, including, inter alia, graphic descriptions of his alleged vomit and other symptoms. See, e.g., #7-1, at 4A-4B & 4L (electronic docketing pages 6-7 &17).
Nor does plaintiff need to extensively list and outline specific breakfast, lunch, and dinner trays that allegedly were not prepared properly. See, e.g., #7-1, at 4Q-4R (electronic docketing pages 22-23).
The Court is abundantly confident that plaintiff can allege all of the claims in the tendered pleadings with sufficient specificity and clarity in no more than 8 pages of operative factual allegations total. He will be allowed to file a pleading with no more than that.
The motions seeking leave to file the unnecessarily prolix pleadings proposed therefore will be denied and the prolix original complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will allow plaintiff a ...