Brown v. Gipson et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING Complaint and GRANTING Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/24/2015. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form) (Marrujo, C)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7

WILLIAM E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 1:13 cv 02084 GSA PC

vs.

10

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

11

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS

12
13
14
15

16
17
18

I.

Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

19

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

20

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

21

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

22

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

24

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on January 27, 2014 (ECF No. 6).
1

1
2

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

4

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

5

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

6

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s

8

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the

9

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,

10

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not

11

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union

12

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268

13

(9th Cir. 1982)).

14

II.

15

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

16

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pelican Bay State Prison, brings this civil rights action against

17

defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the

18

following individual defendants: Warden Connie Gipson; Sgt. Wilson; Sgt. J. Gonzales; A.

19

Guzman; E. Castro; S. Weber. Sgt. Rasley; Lt. M. Marsh; C/O Saucedo; C/O Scalfe; C/O Miere.

20

Plaintiff‟s complaint consists of a single page identifying this action as a civil rights

21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and naming individual defendants. Attached to the

22

complaint is a copy of a document filed in Coleman v. Brown, et al., No. CV-S-90-0520 LKK

23

JFM. The document is titled “Notice of Motion and Motion For Enforcement of Court Orders

24

and Affirmative Relief Related to Use of Force and Disciplinary Measures.” Plaintiff also

25

attaches a document titled “Plaintiff‟s Reply in Support of Motion for Enforcement of Court

26

Orders and Affirmative Relief Related to Use of Force and Disciplinary Measures.” Attached

27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

the notice of motion and reply in the Coleman case is one page declaration of Plaintiff, along
with a 22 page statement of facts.
Plaintiff‟s statement of facts is a rambling narrative, detailing the conditions of Plaintiff‟s
confinement in the CDCR over the past several years. Plaintiff refers to treatment for his mental
health and medical conditions, recommendations by his sentencing court for mental health
treatment, documents regarding gang validation, disciplinary action against Plaintiff, unspecified
due process allegations, a hunger strike and the response to it by correctional officials, retaliation
“by use of force and fabricated documents,” involuntary medication, corporate malfeasance,
prolonged physical and psychological isolation, inadequate food, extreme temperatures, yard

10

access, bedding, “unconstitutional retainment,” staff misconduct in general, cell extraction.

11

recurring theme in Plaintiff‟s complaint appears to be inadequate mental health treatment.

A

12

A.

13

Plaintiff appears to be bringing this action to enforce court orders in Coleman v. Brown,

Class Action

14

CV-S-90-0520-LKK-JFM. Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from

15

unconstitutional prison conditions cannot be brought where there is a pending class action suit

16

involving the same subject matter. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991));

17

Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc). “Individual members of the

18

class and other prisoners may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they must

19

do so by urging further actions through the class representative and attorney, including contempt

20

proceedings, or by intervention in the class action.” Id. Any asserted requests for injunctive

21

relief are therefore dismissed. If Plaintiff seeks to complain about a perceived failure to comply

22

with orders in Coleman, he may contact plaintiff‟s class counsel.2

23
24

B.

Civil Rights Act

25
26
27
28

2

Counsel for the plaintiff class in Coleman is Donald H. Specter at the Prison Law Office,
General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964.
3

1
2
3
4

Should Plaintiff seek to initiate a separate civil action from Coleman, he is advised of the
following. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant
acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the
Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.

5

2006). “A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an

6

affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that

7

person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟”

8
9
10
11

Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,
743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite causal connection can be established not only by some
kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of
acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

12

constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged

13

each defendant with conduct indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to

14

Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply

15

by alleging a list of grievances and then charge defendants with the vague allegation that they

16

neglected his condition. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant was aware of a

17

specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. Plaintiff has failed

18

to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted

19

leave to file an amended complaint.

20

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to

21

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where

22

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under

23

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened.

24

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described

25

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

26

///

27
28

C.

Rule 18
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff‟s complaint is a blatant violation of Rule 18. Plaintiff list multiple, unrelated
claims that have occurred over time. “A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or alternate
claims, as many claims, legal, equitable or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Thus, multiple claims against a single party are permissible, but Claim A
against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of
morass (a multiple claim, multiple defendant) suit produces, but also to ensure that prisoners pay
the required filing fees. The Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous
suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without the prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

12

Plaintiff‟s complaint is voluminous and includes several unrelated claims. Plaintiff will

13

be given an opportunity to file a first amended complaint under this case number, wherein he is

14

directed to plead/allege only related claims. All unrelated claims should be brought in separate

15

suits. Plaintiff is advised that if he chooses to file a first amended complaint, and fails to comply

16

with Rule 18(a), the Court will count all frivolous/noncognizable unrelated claims that are

17

dismissed as strikes, such that Plaintiff may be barred from filing in forma pauperis in the future.

18

III.

19

Conclusion and Order
The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims

20

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

21

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

22

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

23

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

24

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

25

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what

26

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal

27

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must

28

5

1
2
3
4

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

5

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

6

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an

7

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

8
9
10
11

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

12

Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim;

13

2.

The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

14

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

15

16

an amended complaint;
4.

Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

17

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

18

complaint; and

19
20

5.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend dismiss
this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

/s/ Gary S. Austin

26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

6

February 23, 2015