Calamia

(PC) Tate v. Calamia

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 16, 20242:23-cv-01637California840 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEREK TATE, No. 2:23-cv-1637 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TIARA CALAMIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis seeking relief pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2023, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to 19 amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint must generally be short and 23 plain. 24 Plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from the same problem as the original: it is not 25 short and plain. Instead, it is rambling, confusing, conclusory (meaning certain allegations are 26 conclusions only and not supported by factual allegations) and, at times, not legible. Further, 27 plaintiff has…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.