Mehmood v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 08/21/15 ordering the second amended complaint 32 is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a third amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YASIR MEHMOOD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2075 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He

18

commenced this action in September 2014. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is before the

19

court for screening. (ECF No. 32.)

20

In the SAC, plaintiff names numerous individual and agency defendants at the federal,

21

state, and county level. His asserted claims include breach of contract, violations of his religious

22

rights over a two-year period, violation of the False Claims Act, misuse of inmate trust funds,

23

medical malpractice, and health care fraud. Along with monetary damages, he seeks injunctive

24

relief against the United States Marshals and the Sacramento County Main Jail, where he is no

25

longer housed. (ECF No. 32 at 76-82.) See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001)

26

(inmate’s claims for injunctive relief concerning the prison where he is housed are moot when he

27

is no longer subjected to those conditions). He also seeks a court-appointed Special Master,

28

federal health inspectors, and a Bureau of Prisons Imam, among other relief. (Id.)
1

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 sets forth general rules of notice pleading in the federal courts. See

2

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002). Complaints are required to set forth (1) the

3

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

4

showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires only

5

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

6

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Even if the factual elements of the cause of action

7

are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and

8

plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry v.

9

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the SAC does not meet the Rule 8 pleading

10

requirements.

11

Also, the SAC attempts to bring numerous unrelated claims in a single action. Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim,

13

cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many

14

claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an opposing party.” “Thus multiple

15

claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

16

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

17

“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits[.]” Id.
For the foregoing reasons, the SAC must be dismissed. As plaintiff’s original complaint

18
19

was found to state First Amendment claims against jail administrator Toliver in his individual

20

capacity, plaintiff will have one final opportunity to amend.1 (ECF No. 5 at 5.) To state a § 1983

21

claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing each named defendant either exhibited some sort of

22

“direct personal participation in the deprivation” or “set[ ] in motion a series of acts by others

23

which the actor [knew] or reasonably should [have known] would cause others to inflict the

24

constitutional injury.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743–744 (9th. Cir. 1978).

25

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. The Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is dismissed; and

27
28

1

As plaintiff is no longer housed at the Sacramento jail, any claims for injunctive relief against
jail officials in their official capacity are moot.
2

1

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a Third

2

Amended Complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

3

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

4

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; plaintiff

5

must file an original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file an amended

6

complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

7

Dated: August 21, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12

2 / mehm2075.SAC

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3