Lively v. County of Humboldt

Background

Eric J. Lively, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was previously allowed to file an amended complaint. The court had instructed him to provide a “short and plain” statement of his claims as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and to allege facts showing that the claims were plausible under Rule 12(b)(6), the rule governing failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Lively’s amended complaint was nearly 60 pages long and consisted mainly of single-spaced, run-on sentences. It included slightly more than 300 pages of exhibits, including records from a Humboldt County code-enforcement action and a petition for a court order concerning detention. The court said that, even when read with the leniency generally given to people representing themselves, the complaint was almost impossible to understand. The court could discern only that Lively appeared to be concerned about conditions on a property he apparently owned; the possible claims and supporting facts were otherwise unclear.

Ruling

The court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 8, Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the court’s order concerning amendment. Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a party fails to follow a court order or otherwise fails to prosecute the case.

The court allowed Lively to file a second amended complaint by September 11, 2026. It stated that the new complaint must comply with the order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in all respects and warned that this would be his final opportunity to plausibly allege a claim. The court said that failure to comply would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).

The case was stayed in all other respects pending further action, and all pending motions and requests were terminated. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.