Kevin William King v. County of Los Angeles, 2:15-cv-07072

Plaintiff Kevin William King, proceeding pro se, sued multiple defendants after alleged incidents while detained in Los Angeles County jail between January and July 2014, including an May 16, 2014 use-of-force incident captured on video and subsequent loss of pro per and law-library access.
Plaintiff originally named eight defendants and brought various Section 1983 and state-law claims; the County removed the action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction.
The County and individual defendants moved to dismiss and/or for a more definite statement; the Court granted King leave to amend on November 6, 2015 limited to the amendments discussed in the Court’s order.
King filed a 300-page first amended complaint (FAC) naming about 28 defendants and asserting additional claims and facts that appeared to span unrelated events and additional parties beyond the May 16, 2014 incident.
The Court concluded the FAC violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (not a short, plain statement) and exceeded the scope of the Court’s prior leave to amend by adding new parties and claims without leave.
The FAC was dismissed in its entirety without prejudice; King was given 30 days to file a compliant amended complaint and was encouraged to use the Federal Pro Se Clinic. Pending motions were denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FAC complies with Rule 8(a)	King submitted a lengthy FAC alleging discrete constitutional violations and factual detail to support claims	Defendants argued the pleading was prolix, confusing, and failed to give fair notice	Court held FAC fails Rule 8(a); dismissed without prejudice
Whether FAC exceeded scope of leave to amend	King said video review justified adding defendants and claims arising from May 16 incident	County argued many added parties/claims were unrelated and exceeded court’s authorized amendments	Court held FAC added new parties/claims beyond granted leave; dismissed those additions
Whether liberal pro se construction excuses Rule 8 defects	King relied on pro se status and liberal construction of pleadings	Defendants relied on Rule 8’s requirements and authorities rejecting prolix pleadings even if pro se	Court held pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with Rule 8(a)
Disposition of pending motions after dismissal	King sought extensions and had pending motions including summary judgment	Defendants had active motions to dismiss and for more definite statement	Court denied all pending motions as moot following dismissal of the FAC

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (prolix, confusing complaints may be dismissed under Rule 8 to protect defendants and judicial resources)
McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795 (9th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but must still comply with procedural rules)
Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) (pleadings must provide fair notice of claims and grounds to defendants)
Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 8 requires simple, concise, direct averments; failure can justify dismissal)