Opinion
CASE NO. C11-1031RAJ.
September 26, 2011
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a Report and Recommendation ("R R," Dkt. # 5) from the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, and the objections (Dkt. # 6) of Plaintiff Michelle R. Mathis to the R R. For the reasons stated below, the court ADOPTS the R R, DENIES Ms. Mathis's objections, DISMISSES this case, and directs the clerk to enter judgment.
Ms. Mathis has filed a complaint that is more than 440 largely single-spaced typewritten pages, not including more than 100 pages of exhibits attached to the complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is difficult to conceive of a complaint that better embodies the antithesis of the requirements of Rule 8. The complaint is easily the longest that this court has ever seen. By way of comparison, it is very unusual for a complaint in even the most complex case to exceed 50 pages. Despite its length, the complaint leaves the court with little idea what Ms. Mathis is claiming. The complaint is riddled with lengthy recitations of law, but its factual allegations are either nonsensical or inherently implausible. The court cannot find even one plausibly stated claim among the more than 400 pages of the complaint.
Ms. Mathis has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. When a plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status, the court must scrutinize the action to ensure that it states a claim on which the court can grant relief, that it states claims against parties who are not immune from suit, and that the action is not frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that screening provisions of § 1915(e) apply to both prisoners and non-prisoners).
Ms. Mathis's complaint runs afoul of each of the prohibitions of § 1915(e). Among the more than 200 defendants she names in her suit, several are immune from suits for damages. As noted, the complaint does not state a claim on which relief may be granted. It also, as the court has noted, fails to comply with Rule 8, and no court will grant relief on a complaint that is so lengthy. Finally, both the length of the complaint and the fanciful nature of many of its allegations are hallmarks of a frivolous action.
The R R reaches the same conclusions. The only serious consideration is whether to permit Mr. Mathis to amend her complaint. The court concurs with the R R's recommendation that Ms. Mathis not receive leave to amend. In her objection to the R R, Ms. Mathis demonstrates no willingness to amend her complaint. The court is convinced that were she given leave to amend, any amendment would not cure the deficiencies the court has identified.
Finally, the court DENIES Ms. Mathis's request that the court recuse itself from this case. The court finds no basis on which a reasonable person could question whether the court has any bias that would affect its resolution of this case.
For the reasons stated above, the court ADOPTS the R R (Dkt. # 5), DENIES Ms. Mathis's objections (Dkt. # 6), dismisses this action with prejudice, and directs the clerk to enter judgment.