Opinion
No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P.
February 14, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2008, plaintiff submitted a fourth amended complaint. Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Because an answer was filed on October 12, 2007, plaintiff may not amend the complaint unless leave of court to do so is first given. Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to amend nor a stipulation to amend the complaint signed by all parties. Plaintiff's amended complaint will, therefore, be stricken, and this action will proceed on the existing pleadings.
In addition, the court notes that plaintiff's fourth amended complaint consists of 103 pages, plus he has requested to submit 297 pages of supporting documentation with this fourth amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim . . ." Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint does not qualify as a short concise statement as required under Rule 8. This pleading method does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8 that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. To the contrary, plaintiff's complaint would require the court to comb through 400 pages in order to even guess at plaintiff's claims. The court is unwilling to do this in part due to limited judicial resources, but also because it is for plaintiff — not the court — to formulate his claims. Plaintiff has previously been advised of the proper pleading requirement to comply with Rule 8. (See June 1, 2006 Order, Doc. 33). Accordingly, if plaintiff intends to request leave to file a fourth amended complaint, he is warned that any proposed amended complaint must comply with Rule 8.
However, plaintiff is cautioned that the court is not disposed to allow further attempts to amend the complaint in this case under Rule 15. Plaintiff has had several opportunities to amend his complaint. Although several of the defendants and claims in his third amended complaint have been dismissed pursuant to the court's September 27, 2007 order (Doc. 84) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, his third amended complaint has viable claims which have survived. Any proposed amended complaint cannot resurrect those claims which have been dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, submitted on February 5, 2008, is stricken.