United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff's
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to
serve the Complaint but provides Plaintiff leave to file an
amended pleading by January 5, 2020, to cure the deficiencies
identified herein. The Court also grants Plaintiff's
Motion for Change of Name on Docket (Dkt. 9) and orders the
caption be corrected to reflect the change in name of Brett
Brooke Sonia to Brooke Lyn Sonia.
filed a “Motion for Change of Name on Docket”
indicating her name has been changed to Brooke Lyn Sonia.
Dkt. 9. Plaintiff submitted state court documents confirming
her change of name. Id. Accordingly, the Court
orders the caption be corrected to reflect the change in name
of Brett Brooke Sonia to Brooke Lyn Sonia.
who is currently incarcerated at Washington State
Penitentiary (“WSP”), states she has been denied
adequate medical treatment and accommodations for gender
dysphoria in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments, Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and state law. Dkts. 8, 10.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint: [ ] is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted[.]” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193
(9th Cir. 1998).
Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the pleader is entitled to relief, ” and
“[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(e).
Plaintiff filed a 70-page Complaint on October 12, 2019. Dkt.
8 The Complaint is difficult to understand, contains numerous
redundancies, and has a confusing organizational scheme. Dkt.
8. On October 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Statement of the
Facts in Brief. 10. That pleading is somewhat less lengthy
and confusing, but it is not clear if Plaintiff intended this
later filing to supersede her original Complaint. See
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.)
(citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner &
Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as
amended), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) (an
amended pleading is generally deemed a complete substitute
for an original pleading).
“the Court cannot glean what claims for relief might
lay hidden in the narration provided by [P]laintiff and it is
[P]laintiff's responsibility to make each claim clear and
provide only a short statement of facts supporting [each]
claim, ” Henderson v. Scott, 2005 WL
1335220, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2005), Plaintiff is ordered to
file an amended complaint which complies with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8 and this Order.
amended complaint must contain a short, plain statement
telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff
believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who
violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or
failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the
individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff
suffered because of the individual's conduct. See
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each
claim for relief must be simple, concise, and direct.
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original Complaint, not as a supplement. The Court will
screen the amended complaint to determine whether it contains
factual allegations linking each defendant to the alleged
violations of Plaintiff's rights. The amended complaint
shall not exceed twenty (20) pages absent leave of Court and
upon a showing of good cause.
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or before
January 5, 2020 the undersigned will recommend ...