(PS) Tezak v. Wilburn
2:22-cv-02219
E.D. Cal.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff William M. Tezak, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by law enforcement officers and others following an allegedly unlawful search and seizure on his property.
- The complaint names several defendants, including various members of the California Highway Patrol, the Susanville Police Department, city officials, and private individuals involved in towing services.
- The first amended complaint is 163 pages long, contains extensive legal citations, conclusory assertions, and incorporates prior allegations by reference, making it difficult to discern specific claims and facts.
- The original complaint was previously dismissed for failing to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
- The first amended complaint was once again reviewed for sufficiency and clarity as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 | Complaint asserts rights violations in detailed allegations | Not discussed at this stage | Complaint fails to provide a short, plain statement as required |
| Specificity of Claims | Tezak references wide-ranging legal and factual claims | Not discussed at this stage | Complaint lacks specificity and clarity on claims |
| Incorporation by Reference | Incorporates by reference large portions of prior allegations | Not discussed at this stage | Method violates Rule 8's requirement for concise pleading |
| Contradictory and Irrelevant Material | Plaintiff alleges varying facts and irrelevant events | Not discussed at this stage | Complaint muddled with contradictions and irrelevant details |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that Rule 8 requires claims to be stated simply, concisely, and directly for sufficient notice to defendants)
- Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 is satisfied if complaint gives defendant fair notice)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend before dismissal)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (complaint must allege specific acts by individual defendants)
- May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirmative link between defendant’s actions and alleged deprivation required)