Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Dewayne Outley Jr., a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of Modesto, the Modesto Police Department, the police chief in his official capacity, and seven officers in their individual capacities in the Eastern District of California. The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerns a March 19, 2024 arrest. Outley alleges he was trying to distract a toddler with a sheathed knife when a witness called 911, and that he was then arrested. The court made no findings on those allegations.
The complaint pleads six causes of action: unreasonable search and seizure; a combined count of false arrest, kidnapping, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and failure to intervene; excessive force and assault and battery under federal and California law; invasion of privacy and dissemination of protected information; negligence and gross negligence; and a Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim. Outley seeks a permanent injunction against future unlawful searches, seizures and profiling, plus damages and costs. As a precaution, the court had already sealed the complaint and his temporary restraining order motion.
The order is a magistrate judge's screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Outley first applied to proceed in forma pauperis while incarcerated and, after his release, filed a renewed application on October 2, 2026. He had also filed a motion to stay, asserting that county defendants were impeding his court access while in custody, and a supplemental request the court found unclear.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that it made the required financial showing, and denied the earlier application as moot. On screening, it dismissed the complaint for failing to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The 51-page handwritten pleading was disorganized, repetitive and argumentative, mixed in case citations, documentary references and unclear abbreviations, and left the court unable to tell which claims Outley meant to pursue. The court singled out the second cause of action, asserted collectively against ten municipal and individual defendants on vague and conclusory allegations. It stressed that Rule 8 dismissal does not depend on whether the claims lack merit, and that self-represented status does not excuse compliance.
The dismissal is not a final judgment. The court dismissed with leave to amend because it is conceivable that Outley can plead civil rights claims plainly and succinctly. He has 30 days to file an amended complaint showing how each defendant's conduct in the March 19, 2024 arrest deprived him of a constitutional right, with an affirmative link between each defendant and the claimed harm. The amended pleading must use sequentially numbered paragraphs, allege the basis for federal jurisdiction, and be complete in itself under Local Rule 220 because it will supersede the original. If he does not comply on time, the magistrate judge may recommend dismissal of the action; no such recommendation has been made.
The court denied the motion to stay and the supplemental request as moot, because Outley is no longer incarcerated and no longer faces the resource limits that prompted them. To the extent the request sought interference with other pending actions in the district, the court said it could not do so.
Key Takeaways
- A lengthy, repetitive handwritten complaint that does not tell the defendants and the court who did what can be dismissed under Rule 8(a)(2), even if some claims might survive on their merits.
- Lumping many legal theories and ten defendants into a single count on conclusory allegations does not give the fair notice Rule 8 requires.
- A screening dismissal with leave to amend is not a final judgment, and the plaintiff keeps the chance to cure the pleading within 30 days.
- An amended complaint replaces the original and must be self-contained under Local Rule 220, so it cannot incorporate earlier filings by reference.
- Release from custody can moot motions premised on incarceration-related obstacles, and a renewed in forma pauperis application may then be granted.
Why It Matters
This is a routine screening order on a magistrate judge's pro se docket. It is not a precedential ruling and makes no finding on whether the arrest, force or privacy allegations have merit. Its value is as an example of how courts in this district apply Rule 8 to sprawling pro se civil rights pleadings while still giving the plaintiff a chance to amend.
What remains open is whether Outley will file a compliant amended complaint, whether any claim against any defendant, including the city and police department, can be plausibly pleaded, and whether the requested injunction or damages are warranted. The order resolves none of those questions.