Davis v. Carlton et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/20/14 vacating 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's addendum is disregarded. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the instant order and the 12/12/13 order. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL S. DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-1100 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

C. CARLTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. On July 11,

17
18

2014, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to

19

file an amended complaint.

20

On July 14, 2014, plaintiff’s “addendum” to his complaint was entered on the court’s

21

docket. In his “addendum,” plaintiff states that because he does not have access to his initial

22

complaint or its exhibits, he is unable to prepare an amended complaint. (ECF No. 24 at 1-2.)

23

Instead, plaintiff used the summation included in the court’s screening order to supplement the

24

items contained in the original complaint. Plaintiff states that he also created the addendum in an

25

effort to expedite the court’s review of his original complaint, “until [plaintiff] can gain access to

26

[his] original documents [he] filed after [his] release from jail on October 16, 2014.” (ECF No.

27

24 at 2.)

28

////
1

1

However, plaintiff was not granted leave to file an addendum or supplement to his original

2

complaint. By order filed December 12, 2013, plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed, and

3

plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint that was complete in and of itself, and

4

subject to a 25 page limit. Plaintiff was informed that his shotgun complaint was inappropriate.

5

The screening of plaintiff’s original complaint was made difficult by plaintiff’s myriad

6

complaints about multiple, unrelated events that took place during his incarceration in the Placer

7

County Jail from July 6, 2009, through July 13, 2010. Plaintiff’s “addendum” does not rectify

8

such deficiencies.

9

Plaintiff appears to allege that some defendants are liable based on their role in the inmate

10

grievance process. However, prisoners have no stand-alone due process rights related to the

11

administrative grievance process. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see

12

also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that there is no liberty interest

13

entitling inmates to a specific grievance process). Put another way, prison officials are not

14

required under federal law to process inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to them in

15

a favorable manner. Because there is no right to any particular grievance process, plaintiff cannot

16

state a cognizable civil rights claim for a violation of his due process rights based on allegations

17

that prison officials ignored or failed to properly process grievances. See, e.g., Wright v.

18

Shannon, 2010 WL 445203 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb.2, 2010) (plaintiff's allegations that prison

19

officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim under the First

20

Amendment).

21

Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ.

22

P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences, the

23

claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Unrelated claims against

24

different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits.

25
26
27
28

The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party
asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as alternate
claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing
party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, 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
2

1

morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but
also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the
Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous
suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of
the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2
3
4

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of

5

defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are

6

satisfied). For example, plaintiff must bring his claim that defendant Carlton used excessive force

7

in violation of the Eighth Amendment in a separate complaint from an action in which he alleges

8

that Dr. Duncan was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by failing to

9

provide catheters for self-catheterization, because they are unrelated causes of action against

10
11

different defendants.
In an abundance of caution, the court vacates the findings and recommendations, and will

12

grant plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with this court’s

13

December 12, 2013 order, as well as the instant order. Plaintiff is cautioned that he is required to

14

diligently prosecute this action, even if he is housed in the Los Angeles County Jail or other penal

15

institution.

16

Plaintiff’s original complaint is 81 pages long. If plaintiff needs a copy of his complaint,

17

the Clerk’s Office will provide copies of documents at $0.50 per page. Checks in the exact

18

amount are made payable to "Clerk, USDC." Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle

19

him to free photocopies. Copies of documents in cases may also be obtained by printing from the

20

public terminals at the Clerk's Office or by contacting Cal Legal Support Group at: 3104 "O"

21

Street, Suite 291, Sacramento, CA 95816, phone [phone], fax [phone].

22
23

Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 11, 2014 (ECF No. 22) are vacated;

26

2. Plaintiff’s “addendum” is disregarded;

27

3. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended

28

complaint that complies with the instant order, and the December 12, 2013 order; and
3

1

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights

2

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3

Dated: August 20, 2014

4
5

/davi1100.vac

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4