Lewis v. Brumfield

Background

On December 9, 2020, the court dismissed Lewis’s 68-page complaint with leave to amend. The court instructed him to rely on facts rather than conclusions, avoid unrelated claims, and limit any amended complaint to 10 pages. It warned that failure to follow those instructions could result in dismissal.

After receiving an extension, Lewis filed a first, second, and third amended complaint. He also filed two motions asking the court to treat the third amended complaint as the operative complaint. The court granted those requests and treated the third amended complaint as the operative pleading.

Screening standard

Because Lewis was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or employees, the court was required to conduct an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state law.

Reasons for dismissal

The court found that the third amended complaint had not cured the defects in the original complaint and was “prolix,” meaning excessively lengthy and difficult to organize or understand. It was 39 pages—nearly four times the 10-page limit—and included discussions of Lewis’s other lawsuits, repetitive statements, and claims that duplicated claims in another pending action.

The court also found that the complaint included unrelated events involving different defendants from April 15, 2019, through March 18, 2020, as well as later dates. Lewis attempted to assert claims involving alleged force and violence, inhumane conditions, retaliation, deliberate indifference, due process, equal protection, and unspecified Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations. The court said these claims involved different facts and legal standards and did not comply with the earlier instruction that the claims share the same transaction or occurrence and a common question of law or fact.

Lewis named 19 defendants, including three unidentified defendants, but alleged conduct by only eight of them. The court also noted that several defendants appeared to have been named based only on their supervisory positions, which is not enough for liability under § 1983. Finally, the court found that Lewis repeatedly stated legal conclusions without alleging supporting facts, including his assertion that a sheriff knew about constitutional violations because officers had allegedly met to protect one another.

Disposition

The court concluded that Lewis had failed to file a complaint stating a plausible cause of action despite having an opportunity to amend and instructions explaining how to do so. Because further amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the federal civil-rights suit. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file.