Opinion
2:21-cv-00606-WBS-CKD
11-08-2021
PARVIN OLFATI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; City of Sacramento Police Officer Jared Robinet; City of Sacramento Police Officer Maryna Stanionis; City of Sacramento Police Officer Nathaniel Reason; City of Sacramento Fire Captain Stephen Mayer; Barbara Andres; and Steven Maviglio, Defendants.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants City of Sacramento (“the City”); Sacramento Police Officers Jared Robinet, Maryna Stanionis, and Nathaniel Reason; Sacramento Fire Captain Stephen Mayer; Barbara Andres, and Steven Maviglio move to dismiss plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint for, among other reasons, failure to state a short and concise claim showing that she is entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (See City Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 56); Maviglio and Andres Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 55).)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a pleading that states a claim for relief contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). As this court has observed twice previously, the incident giving rise to this lawsuit appears to be relatively straightforward. Nevertheless, plaintiff continues to file complaints that are excessively “verbose, confusing and conclusory.” Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff's initial complaint was 322 pages. The First Amended Complaint totaled 566 pages, and was filled with confusing, repetitive, and conclusory statements. After the court admonished plaintiff to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and dismissed the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 30), plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint totaling 227 pages which the court dismissed because it was “equally as verbose, confusing, prolix, excessive, and duplicative as its two predecessors.” (Docket No. 50).
After the court admonished plaintiff twice already that “unnecessarily lengthy flings are unlikely to comply with the requirement of a short and plain statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), ” (Docket Nos. 30, 50), plaintiff has now filed a Third Amended Complaint, but failed to make any substantial changes based on the court's previous orders.
Plaintiff cites Hearns v. San Bernandino Police Department, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that the court cannot dismiss a complaint based on length. However, the Ninth Circuit has explained that though “verbosity of length is not by itself a basis for dismissing a complaint, [] we have never held - and we know of no authority supporting the proposition - that a pleading may be of unlimited length and opacity.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). As this court has previously told plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “[o]ur district courts are busy enough without having to penetrate a tome approaching the magnitude of War and Peace to discern a plaintiff's claims and allegations.” Id. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is not only excessive in length at 217 pages, but is also confusing, duplicative, and unintelligible. Therefore, the court will again grant defendants' motions to dismiss. Though the court has already given plaintiff two opportunities to comply with its order, the court will give plaintiff further leave to amend one last time.
Because the court dismisses the complaint under Rule 8(a), it does not address defendants' other grounds for dismissal.
Although the court previously stated that it would not succumb to the strong temptation to impose a page limit on plaintiff's amended complaint, given plaintiff's disregard of the court's admonishments, the court will now do so. Accordingly, the court now places a 40-page limit on plaintiff's next amended complaint. This page limit is based on limits that other judges routinely place. See e.g., Bittaker v. Rushen, 978 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 1992) (upholding dismissal after plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the court's 40-page limit); Sloan v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 2018 WL 3769382, No. 2:15-cv-1921 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) (dismissing plaintiff's complaint after failure to comply with the 25-page limit the court had placed on plaintiff); Sameer v. Right Moves 4 U, 2018 WL 2318331, No. 1:17-cv-886 AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2018) (dismissing plaintiff's complaint after failure to comply with 50-page limit). The court strongly cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the page limit, this Order, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 may result in dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 55, 56) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has twenty day from the date this order is signed to file an amended complaint, if she can do so consistent with this Order.