Zambrano v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al

PAGE 1 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SERGIO MIGUEL ZAMBRANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00443-SB
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Sergio Miguel Zambrano (“Zambrano”), a self-represented litigant in the
custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), filed this civil rights action in
March 2022 against ODOC, Oregon Corrections Enterprises (“OCE”), several ODOC and OCE
officials, and others (together, “Defendants”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
recommends that the district judge dismiss Zambrano’s claims with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Zambrano filed a 27-page complaint in March 2022, alleging a “preliminary list” of
claims arising from alleged violations of “[f]ederal constitutional, statutory, or treaty rights”
against 20 defendants. (Compl, ECF No. 1, asserting claims for failure to protect, prison
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 14

PAGE 2 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
conditions, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Performance Rating Act of 1950, False
Claims Act, “Federal Environmental Pesticide Act,” Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the
“Corrupt Organizations Act,” and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act; and state claims for fraud,
“simulation of legal process,” deceit, conspiracy, and property damage).
On the same day that Defendants answered Zambrano’s original complaint (ECF No. 18),
Zambrano moved for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 19), followed by a motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 24), motion for class
certification (ECF No. 33), and motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 39). On March 10, 2023,
the district judge adopted the undersigned’s recommendation and denied Zambrano’s motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and motion for class certification. (ECF
No. 61.)
On April 12, 2023, Zambrano filed a 69-page amended complaint, naming 30 defendants.
(Am. Compl., ECF No. 64.) The Court interpreted the filing as a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, and granted the unopposed motion. (ECF No. 66.) Zambrano then filed a
motion for leave to file another amended complaint on April 24, 2023, which the Court denied
because Zambrano failed to comply with the Court’s local rules. (ECF No. 77.)
On June 2, 2023, Zambrano filed another motion for leave to file an amended complaint
(ECF No. 86), which Defendants did not oppose. The Court granted Zambrano’s motion, and
docketed Zambrano’s second amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 91-92.)
On July 26, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Zambrano’s second amended
complaint. (ECF No. 107.) Instead of responding to Defendants’ motion, Zambrano filed
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 14

PAGE 3 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
motions to compel (ECF Nos. 116-17, 124), a motion for reconsideration of prior rulings (ECF
No. 120), and another motion for class certification (ECF No. 122), among other filings.
After granting Zambrano’s motions for extensions of time to respond to Defendants’
motion to dismiss Zambrano’s second amended complaint (ECF Nos. 112, 131, 135, 137, 141,
143), the Court ultimately denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Zambrano requested
leave to file a third amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 143-44.) The Court ordered Zambrano to file
his third amended complaint by May 14, 2024 (ECF No. 144), but Zambrano filed further
extension requests. (ECF Nos. 145, 147.) The Court ordered Zambrano to file his third amended
complaint by July 24, 2024, and noted that it would not allow any further extension requests.
(ECF No. 151.) Zambrano filed his third amended complaint on or about July 30, 2024. (ECF
Nos. 153, 155.)
Zambrano’s third amended complaint, with exhibits, totaled 944 pages, and named
approximately 139 defendants or categories of defendants. (See Third Am. Compl, ECF No.
155.) Zambrano followed his third amended complaint with a motion for preliminary injunction,
requesting an order enjoining Defendants’ alleged retaliation. (ECF No. 159.)
On November 19, 2024, Defendants filed a 71-page motion to dismiss Zambrano’s third
amended complaint.1 (ECF No. 170.) Defendants argued, among other things, that the Court
should dismiss Zambrano’s third amended complaint “because it is not a ‘short and plain
statement’ of plaintiff’s claims and does not state a claim for relief.” (See id. at 13, “At 944
pages—a 133-page narrative, cross-referenced to a 363-page declaration and 448-page collection
of exhibits—the [third amended complaint] is not the ‘short and plain statement’ required by
1 Many of the defendants are represented by a team of lawyers from Markowitz Herbold
PC, who are serving as special assistant attorneys general.
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 14

PAGE 4 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)] 8(a)(2).”) Defendants also filed a response to
Zambrano’s motion for preliminary injunction, along with several supporting declarations. (ECF
Nos. 173-79.)
The Court held a telephonic status conference on February 10, 2025. (ECF No. 189.) At
that hearing, the Court explained to Zambrano, among other things, that his third amended
complaint joined too many claims and defendants, that the Court’s anticipated ruling on
Defendants’ motion to dismiss would likely narrow the claims, and that focusing his claims in a
more streamlined complaint would result in a more efficient resolution of this case. The Court
asked Zambrano to propose realistic deadlines, granted Zambrano’s extension requests, and
ordered him to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint by
May 30, 2025. (Id.) Zambrano moved to extend the deadline again, and the Court granted the
request in part and extended the deadline to June 30, 2025, because Zambrano had not
demonstrated good cause to extend the deadlines beyond thirty days. (ECF No. 217.)
On May 14, 2025, Zambrano again requested additional time to respond to Defendants’
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 222.) The Court denied the request, explaining:
This case has been pending for more than three years and the pleadings are not yet
resolved. The Court held a status conference on February 10, 2025, to discuss
realistic deadlines with Plaintiff, and the Court extended Plaintiff’s deadline to
respond to the motions to dismiss to May 31, 2025 (ECF No. 189). Nevertheless,
Plaintiff filed another motion to extend that deadline (ECF No. 213), and the
Court granted the motion in part and again extended the deadline to June 30, 2025
(ECF No. 217). In that order, the Court found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated
good cause to extend the response deadline past June 30, 2025. Nor does Plaintiff
demonstrate good cause in his most recent motion for an extension. Plaintiff’s
response to the pending motions to dismiss is due by June 30, 2025. The Court
will not grant any further requests for an extension of that deadline.
(ECF No. 223.) In response, Zambrano filed another motion for temporary restraining order.
(ECF No. 224.)
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 14

PAGE 5 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On or about July 7, 2025, Zambrano responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint (ECF No. 231), but also moved for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint (ECF No. 232). The Court granted Zambrano’s motion and ordered him to file his
fourth amended complaint by August 18, 2025. (ECF No. 233.) In its order, the Court advised
Zambrano that he must comply with Rule 8 or the Court would dismiss this case:
The Court again advises Zambrano that any further complaints must comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8. Specifically, “Rule 8 requires a ‘short
and plain’ statement of a claim.” Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415
(9th Cir. 1985) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)). The Court advises Zambrano that
his fourth amended complaint will operate as a complete substitute for the present
complaint, not as a supplement, and that if Zambrano fails to comply with Rule 8,
the Court will dismiss the complaint. See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651
F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with rules
8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to rule 41(b).”)
(collecting cases); see also Lindblad v. Bolanos, No. 22-16200, 2023 WL
8047762, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (affirming dismissal of a 95-page
complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8); Hatch, 758 F.2d at 415 (“The
district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellants’
complaints, which, including attachments, exceeded 70 pages in length, were
confusing and conclusory and not in compliance with Rule 8.”).
(ECF No. 233 at 2) (emphasis in original). On August 5, 2025, Zambrano filed a motion for
extension of time to file his fourth amended complaint, which the Court granted and ordered
Zambrano to file his fourth amended complaint by September 2, 2025. (ECF Nos. 236, 238,
240.)
On or about August 5, 2025, Zambrano filed a motion titled “Motion to Rule on page
limit based on calculable factors.” (ECF No. 237.) In Zambrano’s motion to rule, he requested
the “Court to rule on a reasonable system/formula to calculate any limit on page-count allowed
for [his] filings[.]” (Id. at 1.) Zambrano also indicated that he “just learned that a ‘claim’ only
holds one right violation, meaning [his] 240 . . . ‘causes of action’ will grow about [three] times
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 14

PAGE 6 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
. . . which will make [his] complaint . . . even longer than 133 pages.”2 (Id. at 1-2.) Zambrano
requested, inter alia, that the Court “indicate which part of the causes for action (78 pages long)
it wants [him] to delete to lower the page count and absolve[ him] from any failure in [his]
claims without it[.]” (Id. at 5.)
In an order addressing Zambrano’s request, the Court declined to impose a specific page
limit on Zambrano’s fourth amended complaint, in “an effort to accommodate Zambrano’s self-
representation and the limitations imposed on the resources available to adults in custody
generally, as well as additional individual challenges that Zambrano describes throughout his
filings.” (ECF No. 240.) However, in response to Zambrano’s request for guidance on amending
his complaint, the Court advised Zambrano that “he must write a short, plain statement informing
the Court of: (1) the federal constitutional or statutory right Zambrano 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 individual’s action or inaction caused the violation of Zambrano’s constitutional
rights; and (5) what specific injury Zambrano suffered because of each individual’s conduct.”
(Id.) The Court explained that “Zambrano need not include evidence in his complaint nor attach
exhibits, as he will have an opportunity to prove his claims later if his complaint survives the
pleading stage.” (Id. at 3.) The Court further advised Zambrano that a plaintiff may add multiple
claims to the same lawsuit when they are claims against the same defendant, or may join
multiple defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants
will arise in the action,” but cautioned Zambrano that “[u]nrelated claims against different
2 Zambrano noted that his third amended complaint was a “‘notice-style’ petition . . .
[and] is only 133 pages long . . . and the total w[ith] exhibits, indexes and other helpers and facts
is 1042 [pages], not 944, so [ninety-eight] pages are missing.” (Id. at 2.)
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 6 of 14

PAGE 7 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [suits involving
multiple claims and defendants] produce, but also to ensure that [adults in custody] pay the
required filing fees.” (Id. at 3-4) (citations omitted).
The Court further advised Zambrano that “[w]hen a plaintiff adds unrelated parties or
claims to a lawsuit (known as ‘misjoinder’), as Zambrano has attempted to do here, Rule 21
“provides that . . . ‘the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party,’ or alternatively,
‘[t]he court may also sever any claim against a party.” (Id. at 4) (citations omitted). The Court
noted that although “Zambrano’s original complaint consisted of less than thirty pages asserting
claims against twenty defendants,” he “has attempted significantly to expand the scope of this
action since his original filing.” (Id.) The Court informed the parties that it would “screen
Zambrano’s fourth amended complaint to determine whether it cures the pleading deficiencies
previously identified by Defendants and complies with the Court’s orders and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure” and explicitly “warn[ed] Zambrano that he must streamline his allegations
by following the Court’s guidance above, and his failure to do so will result in the dismissal of
this action.” (Id. at 5.)
On August 18, 2025, Zambrano requested another extension to file his fourth amended
complaint (ECF No. 241), which the Court granted and extended his deadline to September 26,
2025 (ECF No. 243). On September 2, 2025, Zambrano again requested additional time to file
his fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 245), to which Defendants objected (ECF No. 247-48),
and the Court denied (ECF No. 249). The Court warned Zambrano that “[i]f [he] fails to file his
fourth amended complaint by September 26, 2025, the Court will dismiss Zambrano’s claims
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.” (Id.) Nevertheless, the
Court again extended Zambrano’s deadline by two weeks (to October 10, 2025) because he
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 7 of 14

PAGE 8 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
transferred to another institution and did not immediately receive his legal materials. (ECF No.
251.)
On or about October 10, 2025, Zambrano filed his fourth amended complaint, totaling
1,020 pages with exhibits. (ECF Nos. 254-58.) The Court received the filing in twenty-four
emails from Zambrano’s institution (which requires electronic filing), attaching twenty-four PDF
files totaling 280 megabytes. Court staff spent approximately five hours docketing the fourth
amended complaint in five parts.3
DISCUSSION
The Court recommends that the district judge dismiss this action with prejudice because
Zambrano has demonstrated that he is unwilling to comply with Rule 8.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	The Prison Litigation Reform Act
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to screen
complaints filed by individuals in custody who “seek[ ] redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
B. 	Pleading Requirements
The Rules require a plaintiff to state “a short and plain statement” in a complaint showing
that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2). To state a claim for relief, a
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
3 The volume of Zambrano’s filing caused the court staff member’s computer to “crash.”
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 8 of 14

PAGE 9 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is
not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Rule 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case for failure to comply with
pleading rules or with court orders. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b) (providing for dismissal “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”). “In determining
whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh
five factors including: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22,
1992) (citations omitted). “Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make
explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors and we may review the
record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion.” Id. at 1261
(citations omitted).
C. 	Self-Represented Litigants
Courts “have a duty to read a pro se complaint liberally,” Sernas v. Cantrell, 857 F.
App’x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2021), and should treat “pro se litigants . . . with ‘great leniency’ when
evaluating compliance with ‘the technical rules of civil procedure.’” Seals v. L.A. Unified Sch.
Dist., 797 F. App’x 327, 327 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th
Cir. 1986)). The Supreme Court, however, has also recognized that “[d]istrict [courts] have no
obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231
(2004). Thus, there are limits on the leeway that courts must afford to self-represented litigants.
See Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[T]here are limits to what
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 9 of 14

PAGE 10 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
a court must do to accommodate a party appearing pro se.” (citing Pliler, 542 U.S. at 231)); see
also Atkins v. Montgomery, No. 20-56007, 2024 WL 3594386, at *2 (9th Cir. July 31, 2024)
(rejecting the self-represented plaintiff’s arguments that the magistrate judge failed to provide
“meaningful assistance” on exhaustion, or “take into account the amount of time remaining on
[his] one-year statute of limitations in requiring a response to her order” (citing Pliler, 542 U.S.
at 231)).
II. 	ANALYSIS
There can be no reasonable dispute that Zambrano’s fourth amended complaint—
spanning over 1,000 pages—fails to comply with Rule 8’s required “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2). As a result, the
Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Zambrano’s fourth amended complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 8. See Hatch, 758 F.2d at 415 (“[T]the district court’s dismissal
pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not an abuse of discretion. Rule 8
requires a ‘short and plain’ statement of a claim. We reviewed the pleadings and the history of
this case and concluded that neither [the plaintiffs]’ original nor the proposed amended
complaint complied with Rule 8. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
[the plaintiffs]’ complaints, which, including attachments, exceeded 70 pages in length, were
confusing and conclusory and not in compliance with Rule 8.” (citing Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 675));
Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8 where the plaintiff’s second amended
complaint was “[twenty-three] pages long with [twenty-four] pages of attachments” and was
“equally as verbose, confusing and conclusory as the initial complaint”); Agnew v. Moody, 330
F.2d 868, 870-71 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding that “the district court was entirely justified in holding
that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a)” where “the complaint extended over fifty-five
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 10 of 14

PAGE 11 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
pages, excluding the prayer and exhibits” and although “[d]ismissal of the action for failure to
obey the court’s order was a severe sanction,” the plaintiff “left the court no choice”).
Further, in light of Zambrano’s demonstrated unwillingness to comply with Rule 8
despite several opportunities to amend his complaint, the Court recommends that the district
judge dismiss this case with prejudice. See Britt v. Cal. Council on Crim. Just., 851 F.2d 360 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“District courts may dismiss with prejudice a complaint that does not comply with
Rule 8(a)(2).” (first citing Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1327-28 (9th Cir. 1982);
and then citing Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673-74)).
Weighing the five relevant factors that courts consider when dismissing a case for failure
to comply with the Rules or the Court’s orders, the Court concludes that dismissal with prejudice
will further the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to
manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61
(listing factors). Further, as summarized above, the Court has considered and attempted less
drastic alternatives by allowing Zambrano several opportunities to amend his complaint. (Id.)
The only factor that arguably supports allowing Zambrano to file a fifth amended
complaint is the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. (Id.) However, the
Court has already provided Zambrano with several opportunities to replead his claims, and he
has made no meaningful effort to correct the Rule 8 deficiencies. On the contrary, Zambrano has
consistently ignored or flouted the Court’s warnings and guidance. As a result, the Court has no
confidence that it could ever reach the merits of Zambrano’s claims, and attempting to do so
would result in an unfair burden and cost on Defendants and the judiciary. On balance, the
relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal with prejudice. See, e.g., Howell v. Clans, 816 F.
App’x 118, 119 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [the
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 11 of 14

PAGE 12 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
plaintiff]’s action for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to comply with
Rule 8(a). Despite the district court’s warnings and instructions, [the plaintiff]’s amended
complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the district court’s jurisdiction.” (first citing FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a); then citing McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996); then citing Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674); and then citing
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999))).
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in McHenry is instructive here. In McHenry, the district court
dismissed the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint with prejudice because the complaint included
mostly “narrative ramblings” and “storytelling or political griping.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1175-
76. Despite dismissing prior versions of the complaint with clear instructions, the plaintiffs “did
not obey the judge’s instructions to file a complaint ‘which states clearly how each and every
defendant is alleged to have violated plaintiffs’ legal rights’ and his instructions to ‘edit their
twenty-six page introduction and focus on linking their factual allegations to actual legal
claims.’” Id. at 1176. “Instead, they filed a fifty-three page third amended complaint repeating
the vices of the second amended complaint” and “[i]nstead of editing their twenty-six page
introduction, plaintiffs expanded it.” Id. (“The complaint still reads like a magazine story instead
of a traditional complaint. This time, the claims for relief designated legal theories on which the
relief was based, but the plaintiffs did not specify which defendants were liable on which of the
claims.”). “After receiving the third amended complaint, the judge noted that it had been
submitted ‘paying little heed to the court’s previous orders.’” Id. (“The new section spelling out
what the claims are ‘hardly improves matters, as each of the newly delineated claims
incorporates 122 paragraphs of confused factual allegations and then merely makes perfunctory
reference to a legal claim said to arise from these undifferentiated facts.’”).
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 12 of 14

PAGE 13 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, the district court “noted that ‘the
prior complaints presented long-winded tales of municipal conspiracy and police misconduct, but
failed properly to notify the individual defendants of the legal claims they faced.’” Id. at 1177.
The district court explained that “[t]he larger part of th[e] new complaint restates the second
amended complaint without curing any of that prior complaint’s deficiencies” and found that
“another order to dismiss with leave to replead would serve no purpose but to exacerbate the cost
of this action to all concerned parties[.]” Id.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the entire complaint for violation of Rule 8 and of the court’s orders.” Id. at 1180.
The Ninth Circuit considered, among other factors, that “[t]he district judge in the case at bar had
used less drastic alternatives, such as permitting plaintiffs to replead twice.” Id. at 1178-79. The
Ninth Circuit recognized that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in
this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” Id. at 1179; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1261 (“At all stages of these proceedings the district court not only demonstrated more than
adequate sensitivity to [the plaintiff]’s inexperience as a pro se litigant, but also went out of its
way to assist him. The court granted [the plaintiff] two opportunities to amend his complaint
(each time expressly warning him that failure to timely amend would result in dismissal); [and]
gave him the guidance necessary for him to submit a properly amended first complaint[.]
Moreover, in striking his second amended complaint as deficient, the magistrate [judge]’s order
set out the language of Rule 10(a), clearly explained the reason the complaint was being stricken
in language comprehensible to a lay person, and gave [the plaintiff] an additional thirty days in
which to refile a conforming complaint. Finally, that same order reiterated that [the plaintiff]’s
failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal.”).
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 13 of 14

PAGE 14 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
For all of these reasons, the Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Zambrano’s
claims with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). See Lindblad, 2023 WL 8047762,
at *1 (“The district court properly dismissed [the plaintiff]’s action [alleging police misconduct]
because after an opportunity to amend, [the plaintiff]’s operative complaint failed to comply with
Rule 8.” (first citing FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2); then citing Hatch, 758 F.2d at 415; and then citing
Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674)); Granados v. Padilla, No. 21-16198, 2023 WL 5318463, at *1 (9th
Cir. Aug. 18, 2023) (affirming dismissal of self-represented individual in custody’s constitutional
claims “because after repeated amendment, [the plaintiff]’s operative complaint failed to comply
with Rule 8” (first citing FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2)-(3); and then citing Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court recommends that the district judge DISMISS this action
with prejudice, and deny any pending motions as moot.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Court will refer its Findings and Recommendation to a district judge. Objections, if
any, are due within fourteen (14) days. If no objections are filed, the Findings and
Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due
within fourteen (14) days. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the
Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.
DATED this 27th day of October, 2025.
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00443-SB Document 259 Filed 10/27/25 Page 14 of 14