Calhoun et al v. State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without Prejudice signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/1/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Attachments: # 1 Prisoner IFP Application)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CLINTON E. CALHOUN and QUINTON
SHELDON JOHNSON,

1:12 cv 2016 LJO GSA

10
Plaintiffs,
11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

12
13
14

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; AGENT TURNER, KMPH
FOX CHANNEL 26; AND LEMOR
ABRAMS,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17
18

I.

Introduction
Plaintiffs Clinton E. Calhoun and Quinton Sheldon Johnson ("Plaintiffs"), two state prisoners

19

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on December 12, 2012. (Doc. 1). Both Plaintiffs allege illegal

20

searches of their apartments were conducted by Defendants, California Department of Corrections

21

("CDC"); Agent Turner a CDC officer; KMPH FOX Channel 26; and Lemor Abrams, a news anchor

22

of at Channel 26. Plaintiff contend CDC officers and a news crew came to each their apartments on

23

or about October 30, 2011. After banging on their doors, CDC officers handcuffed each of them and

24

removed them from their residences. After Plaintiffs' removals, the officers searched each of the

25

Plaintiffs' homes. Plaintiffs allege these events were filmed by KMPH Fox Channel 26 and were

26

aired on the Fresno evening news as part of a CDC operation devised to keep a close eye on reported

27

sexual offenders. Both Plaintiffs allege violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 based on the Fourth,

28

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. They seek actual and compensatory damages,
-1-

1

and declaratory and injunctive relief.

2

II.

3

Discussion
The complaint is problematic for several reasons. First, it is improper that two Plaintiffs filed

4

one complaint. Each Plaintiff must file their own complaint and detail the events and the causes of

5

action related the particular facts of their own case. While the events are similar, Plaintiffs cannot

6

combine the two actions together. If Plaintiffs believe that the cases are related, they should file a

7

notice of related cases at the time they file their complaints and the Court will then determine

8

whether the cases will be assigned to the same judge. Plaintiffs are further advised that each

9

complaint must be signed by each Plaintiff. Local Rule 173(b). The instant complaint was only

10

signed by Plaintiff Calhoun.

11

Finally, neither Plaintiff has paid the $350.00 filing fee, or submitted an application to

12

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Any future complaints filed must contain

13

either the $350.00 filing fee, or an in forma pauperis application for each complaint filed.

14

III.

Order

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

This case be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiffs resubmit another complaint, it shall

17

conform with the instructions contained in this order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve

18

Plaintiffs with two copies of the prisoner in forma pauperis application.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 1, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-