Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andrew Leo Vasquez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Aeen Mostafa Asghar and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. He began the case on October 21, 2026, by submitting a complaint through the court's electronic filing pilot program for prisoners. The complaint ran 74 pages. The first five pages were on the court's standard civil rights complaint form, and the remaining pages were labeled attachments.
The pilot program comes from a February 24, 2016 standing order for the Fresno Division. The court and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation created it to reduce the costs of processing civil rights filings. It applies to initial filings, meaning the complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or a motion seeking relief from the order or emergency relief. Complaints may not exceed 25 pages, and exhibits count toward the limit. A plaintiff who needs more pages must submit a motion showing the grounds, together with the proposed complaint, to obtain permission. Plaintiff filed no such motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that the 74-page complaint violated the standing order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which calls for a short and plain statement of the claim. It ordered the complaint, ECF No. 1, stricken from the record for failure to comply with the page limitation. The order is a case-management ruling made at the pleading stage. It does not decide the merits, does not screen the claims, and does not dismiss the action.
The court granted Plaintiff leave to refile a complaint not exceeding 25 pages, including exhibits, within thirty days of service of the order, and directed the clerk to send a civil rights complaint form. It reminded Plaintiff that the refiled complaint should be brief, must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of his constitutional rights, and must contain factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, citing Iqbal and Twombly. It also advised that he may not add new, unrelated claims, citing George v. Smith, and that an amended or refiled complaint supersedes the original and must be complete in itself without reference to the prior pleading, including any exhibits, citing Lacey v. Maricopa County and Local Rule 220.
The court warned that if Plaintiff does not file a compliant complaint, it will issue a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, and failure to state a claim. That is a warning of a possible future recommendation, not a dismissal. The case remains open, and any dismissal would require a later ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Initial complaints submitted through the Eastern District of California's prisoner e-filing pilot program may not exceed 25 pages, and exhibits count toward that limit.
- A prisoner who needs a longer complaint must file a motion showing the grounds for exceeding the limit, along with the proposed complaint, rather than simply submitting extra pages.
- Striking a noncompliant complaint with leave to refile is not a final judgment, because the plaintiff received thirty days to cure and the case remains pending.
- A refiled complaint supersedes the original and must be complete in itself, so any exhibits the plaintiff wants considered must be included within the page limit.
- The order warns that failure to comply may lead to a recommendation of dismissal, but no such recommendation has yet been made.
Why It Matters
The order shows how the Eastern District enforces its prisoner e-filing standing order at the outset of a case. The court tied the overlength filing to both its standing order and Rule 8(a), but it did not reach the merits or screen any claim. Nothing is decided about whether Plaintiff's allegations state a violation of his rights.
The ruling is an unreported, non-precedential order by a magistrate judge, useful mainly as an example of routine pleading management. What remains open is whether Plaintiff will file a compliant complaint within thirty days and, if so, how the court will screen it.