Walker v. Am. Red Cross

• Decision Date: 22 December 2022
• Docket Number: 6:20-cv-01755-MK
• Parties: JERRY L. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

1

JERRY L. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al., Defendants.

No. 6:20-cv-01755-MK

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division

December 22, 2022

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

KASUBHAI, United States Magistrate Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Jerry L. Walker filed this action against Defendant American Red Cross in October 2020. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's application (ECF No. 2) to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is GRANTED. However, because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim despite having the deficiencies of his complaints explained multiple times, the Court should DISMISS the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) with prejudice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In October 2020, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint (ECF No 1), an IFP application (ECF No. 2), and a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff also filed motions for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 9) and emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 10) that same month. Judge Aiken denied Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief. See Orders, ECF Nos. 14, 15. In July 2021, this Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application, dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend, and denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. See Order, ECF No. 16. This Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 1, 2021. See Order, ECF No. 19.

On October 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend (ECF No 21) as well as a proposed amended complaint and supporting memorandum (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff then filed a “two-part corrected, amended complaint” (ECF No 25) on November 16, 2021, and a corrected motion to amend (ECF No. 26) on November 24, 2021. On February 1, 2022, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with leave to amend. See Order, ECF No. 27. This Court ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. Id.

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend (ECF No. 30) with his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) attached as an exhibit (ECF No. 30-1). On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend with a proposed complaint nearly identical to his first submission and with additional exhibits (ECF Nos. 31, 32). On June 9, 2022, this Court again granted Plaintiff's IFP application and dismissed the SAC with leave to amend. See Order, ECF No. 35 (“June 2022 Order”). In that Order the Court specifically instructed Plaintiff as follows:

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). A complaint violates this rule when it is “so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also In re Metro. Sec. Litig., 532 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1278 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (“The purpose of a complaint is not, however, to inform the opposing party of every fact underlying the plaintiff's claims. The proper time for such detailed revelation is discovery.”). “A complaint need only set forth sufficient facts to notify the opposing party of the claims against it and the factual basis of those claims.” In re Metro., 532 F.Supp.2d at 1278.

Plaintiff's SAC (ECF No. 30-1) totals 578 pages, with 129 pages of text and 449 pages of exhibits. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has attempted to comply with the Court's previous instructions, the Court nevertheless again cautions Plaintiff concerning the volume of material he has submitted. Compare Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1131 (noting that excessive length by itself does not violate Rule 8(a)) with Orea v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 859 Fed. App'x 799, 801 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a plaintiff's second amended complaint that spanned more than ninety pages of text and 540 pages of exhibits for violating Rule 8(a) because it “was so lengthy, rambling, confusing, and disorganized”).

The Court advises Plaintiff that if he files a third amended complaint, Plaintiff should briefly and clearly explain in a single document what has happened, what Defendant has done to injure Plaintiff, and why Defendant should be held liable for that injury. Plaintiff should eliminate redundancies and omit lengthy discussions not relevant to the legal claims he makes unless absolutely necessary for his claims. Plaintiff is also advised to omit his procedural history and chronological events sections unless there are facts absolutely necessary for his claims. See In re Metro., 532 F.Supp.2d at 1278 (“The purpose of a complaint is not, however, to inform the opposing party of every fact underlying the plaintiff's claims. The proper time for such detailed revelation is discovery.”). Any further submissions resembling Plaintiff's SAC (ECF No. 30-1) risk dismissal for failure to follow a court order. Plaintiff is further advised that the failure to file a third amended complaint or to comply with the Court's instructions as explained above will result in dismissal of this action.

Id.

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the TAC that is the subject of this Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”). TAC, ECF No. 38.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

According to the TAC, Plaintiff is an individual with a disability. TAC 41, ECF No. 38. Plaintiff was forced to evacuate his campsite following wildfires on September 8, 2020. Id. Plaintiff was then directed to the Holiday Inn Express in Eugene, Oregon. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed, intimidated, and intentionally discriminated against by members of Defendant American Red Cross during his stay. Id. at 41-45.

On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff was notified that he needed to check out of the Holiday Inn Express within twenty-four hours and that alternate shelter at a high school gymnasium was available to him. Id. at 41. Plaintiff was also informed that “only people with the most severe mobility-related disabilities would continue shelter[ing] in a hotel, and that otherwise all other individuals were being asked to vacate.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that various acts of harassment, discrimination, and defamation ensued after he mentioned his status as an individual with a disability to Defendant. Id. at 41-45, 47-131, 133-38.

LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in a United States District Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access to the federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make two determinations: first, whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action, Id.; and second, whether the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Regarding the second determination, district courts have the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints before service of the complaint on a defendant and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim. Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, a complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim and “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The Court is not required to accept legal conclusions, unsupported by alleged facts, as true. Id.

Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is, the court should construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefits of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). In addition, a Pro se plaintiff is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Id.

DISCUSSION

The TAC totals 139 pages of text and 461 pages of exhibits and cites to various provisions of the United States Code. See TAC, ECF No. 38. Significantly, the TAC largely mirrors, and in many places is identical to, the SAC. Compare TAC 44 (alleging Plaintiff “has been subject to intimidation and received death threats”) with SAC 34 (alleging the same), and TAC 124 (alleging “DEFENDANT made a concerted effort to use the natural disaster as a way to publicly admonish and portray PLAINTIFF as undesirable on the basis of disability.”) (capitalization in original) with SAC 133 (alleging the same). Given the Court's previous instruction regarding pleading standards in the June 2022 Order, Plaintiff's failure to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” is reason alone to dismiss the TAC. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added); Orea, 859 Fed....