Keith v. William, et al.
Filing
11
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/9/2016 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 10 amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend, and this case be closed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WILLIAM KEITH,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:14-cv-1596-WBS-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
GARRETT WILLIAM, et al.,
Defendant.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 10).
As was previously explained, the court is required to screen complaints brought
18
by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
19
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion
20
thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
21
granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
23
complaints contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
24
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and
25
directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26
8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the
1
1
plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129
2
(9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts
3
by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy
4
this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by
5
law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.
6
7
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff fails to state his claims with any more clarity than he did in his original
8
complaint. They remain vague and difficult to decipher. In his original complaint, plaintiff
9
named nine defendants, including law enforcement officers, medical personnel at Mule Creek
10
State Prison, and his prior attorney. In his amended complaint, he names new defendants, mostly
11
medical personnel at Wasco State Prison and California Men’s Colony.
12
Plaintiff continues to complains about general “institutional systemic oppression”
13
and corruption of the health care system, but fails to allege actual specific facts as to what
14
specifically has been done wrong. He also continues to allude to lack of treatment for a knee
15
injury, but the limited facts alleged make this claim unclear. Any other claim plaintiff is
16
attempting to state is vague for the undersigned to interpret.
17
II. DISCUSSION
18
Plaintiff was previously cautioned that his allegations are so vague and conclusory
19
that the court is unable to determine whether the claims are frivolous, fanciful, or if the complaint
20
fails to state a claim for relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a
21
complaint must give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements
22
of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th
23
Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was also informed that must allege with at least some degree of particularity
24
overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. His amended complaint fails
25
to cure the defects outlined in the court’s prior order and fails to comply with the requirements of
26
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
2
1
Plaintiff was informed as to what is required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
2
1983. Plaintiff was told that he must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of
3
the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436
4
U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Vague and conclusory allegations
5
concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
6
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
7
specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
8
deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, any claims
9
added in an amended complaint must have a reasonable relationship with the claims in the
10
original complaint. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).
11
Plaintiff failed to follow the court’s instructions as to what was required to state a
12
claim. He also failed to file an amended complaint that meets the pleading standards required by
13
Rule 8. As stated above, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to “plead a
14
short and plain statement of the elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or
15
occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los
16
Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state
17
his claims and supporting facts. In addition, plaintiff’s amended complaint names additional and
18
seemingly unrelated defendants and claims to those alleged in his amended complaint. Again, as
19
plaintiff was previously admonished, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to assert
20
“as many claims as it has against an opposing party,” but does not provide for unrelated claims
21
against several different defendants to be raised on the same action. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18(a).
22
“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not
23
be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different
24
defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
25
Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to cure this defect. Rather, the amended complaint
26
compounds the defect in that he has attempted to add additional unrelated defendants, and
3
1
perhaps even additional unrelated claims.
III. CONCLUSION
2
Plaintiff was given specific and detailed information as to what was required in
3
4
order to state a claim. He has failed to follow the court’s direction to cure the defects in his
5
complaint.
6
which to state a claim. Thus, further leave to amend should be denied.
It appears that plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to amend the complaint in
7
Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
8
cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
9
the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s amended
10
11
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend, and this case
12
be closed.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
14
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
17
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
18
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
20
21
22
DATED: August 9, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?