Lolmaugh v. State of California et al
Filing
4
ORDERsigned by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/28/2014 GRANTING plaintiff's 2 request to proceed IFP; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with 30 days to file an amended complaint; and the Clerk shall send plaintff a form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANA T. LOLMAUGH,
12
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-2229 KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
I. Introduction
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
22
23
24
Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
26
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
27
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
28
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
1
1
II. Screening Standards
2
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
3
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
4
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
5
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
6
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
7
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
8
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
9
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
10
which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
11
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
12
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt
13
Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under
14
this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital
15
Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light
16
most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
17
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
18
III. Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
19
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges constitutional violations during his incarceration at Deuel
20
Vocational Institute in Tracy, Folsom State Prison, and Folsom Minimum Security Facility by
21
unidentified medical doctors, dentists, oral surgeons, administrative staff, and contract workers.
22
(ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff contends that he was deprived of orthopedic devices, medications
23
and therapies for pain and inflammation, as well as access to various services ranging from
24
medical care to quality nutritional food to legal mail. Plaintiff raises myriad unrelated,
25
generalized, and conclusory allegations arising during his entire period of incarceration, from
26
April 2011 to August 26, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
27
////
28
////
2
1
Plaintiff is advised that he may join multiple claims only if they are all against a single
2
defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued
3
in multiple lawsuits.
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
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).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of
12
defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are
13
satisfied).
14
While it is unclear whether plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim, as explained
15
more fully below, his complaint violates Rule 18(a) by including multiple unrelated claims in this
16
single filing. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint under this case
17
number, wherein he is directed to plead/allege only related claims. All unrelated claims should be
18
brought in separate suits. In addition, Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides for the imposition
19
of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the court if a
20
party fails to comply with the court’s Local Rules or any order of the court. Moreover, Eastern
21
District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
22
23
24
25
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal .
. . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
26
See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the
27
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v.
28
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012). Case law is in accord that a district
3
1
court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's case pursuant to
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or
3
fails to comply with the court's orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)
4
(recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells
5
Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that
6
courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a
7
plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court's orders);
8
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
9
Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of
10
the court.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782
11
F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to
12
control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829
13
(1986).
14
Thus, plaintiff’s continued violation of Rule 18(a) may result in the dismissal of some of
15
plaintiff’s claims, or the dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with court
16
orders.
17
IV. Named Defendants
18
Plaintiff names state agencies as defendants. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits brought
19
by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such
20
suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) ( per
21
curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). Although the Eleventh
22
Amendment is not jurisdictional, the court may raise the defect on its own. Wisconsin
23
Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.
24
651, 677-78 (1974). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit.
25
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the State of California and the California Department of
26
Corrections and Rehabilitation are legally frivolous and must be dismissed.
27
////
28
////
4
Plaintiff also names the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s
1
2
Department as defendants. However, plaintiff includes no charging allegations as to such
3
defendants.
4
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
5
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
6
7
8
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
9
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See
10
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983
11
liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no
12
affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy
13
demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another
14
to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an
15
affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is
16
legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy,
17
588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
18
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of
19
their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant
20
holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional
21
violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979)
22
(no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d
23
438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert.
24
denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of
25
official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673
26
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal
27
participation is insufficient).
28
////
5
1
In addition, plaintiff names doe defendants in his complaint. The Ninth Circuit has held
2
that where a defendant’s identity is unknown prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should
3
be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear
4
that discovery would not uncover the identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other
5
grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v.
6
Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, plaintiff does not identify each defendant
7
doe and his or her alleged act committed which plaintiff contends violated his constitutional
8
rights. This is insufficient to put prospective defendants on notice of their alleged actions or
9
omissions that plaintiff claims violate his federal rights. In order to link these doe defendants to
10
the alleged acts or omissions that demonstrate a violation of plaintiff's federal rights, plaintiff is
11
granted leave to amend, to either name the defendants involved, or list the doe defendants
12
involved. If plaintiff can only list these defendants as John Doe, plaintiff must identify the John
13
Doe as best as possible, and allege specific acts that these doe defendants did, such as “John Doe
14
1 did X” and “John Doe 2 and 3 did Y.” Plaintiff is reminded that “[a] plaintiff must allege facts,
15
not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of
16
his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
17
V. Substantive Eighth Amendment Claims
18
Some of plaintiff’s claims allege deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs.
19
Should plaintiff to choose to amend his complaint, he is advised of the following standards
20
governing such medical claims.
21
The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
22
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Estelle v.
23
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). In order to prevail on a claim of cruel and unusual
24
punishment, a prisoner must allege and prove that objectively he suffered a sufficiently serious
25
deprivation and that subjectively prison officials acted with deliberate indifference in allowing or
26
causing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991).
27
28
Where a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims arise in the context of medical care, the
prisoner must allege and prove “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate
6
1
indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. An Eighth Amendment medical
2
claim has two elements: “the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the
3
defendant's response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991),
4
overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en
5
banc).
6
A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result in
7
further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin, 974
8
F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Indications of a serious medical need include
9
“the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities.” Id.
10
at 1059-60. By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the
11
objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
12
825, 834 (1994).
13
If a prisoner establishes the existence of a serious medical need, he must then show that
14
prison officials responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511
15
U.S. at 834. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay,
16
or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which prison
17
officials provide medical care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir.
18
1988). Before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged with regard to
19
medical care, however, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere
20
‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.”
21
Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at
22
105-06). Deliberate indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and
23
“requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's interests or safety.’” Farmer, 511
24
U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U .S. at 319).
25
Delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S.
26
at 104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from delay in providing care, a
27
plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th
28
Cir. 1994); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. “A prisoner need not show his harm was substantial;
7
1
however, such would provide additional support for the inmate's claim that the defendant was
2
deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).
3
Finally, mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to
4
proper medical care do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058
5
(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996)); Sanchez v. Vild,
6
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
7
VI. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
8
9
Plaintiff did not file his complaint on the form used for filing a civil rights complaint by a
prisoner. Thus, he failed to address the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
10
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to
11
provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C.
12
§ 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
13
facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
14
Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,
15
524 (2002). Exhaustion is a prerequisite for all prisoner suits regarding conditions of
16
confinement, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they
17
allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532.
Exhaustion of all “available” remedies is mandatory; those remedies need not meet federal
18
19
standards, nor must they be “plain, speedy and effective.” Id. at 524; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.
20
731, 740 n.5 (2001). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings,
21
notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. A prisoner
22
“seeking only money damages must complete a prison administrative process that could provide
23
some sort of relief on the complaint stated, but no money.” Id. at 734. The fact that the
24
administrative procedure cannot result in the particular form of relief requested by the prisoner
25
does not excuse exhaustion because some sort of relief or responsive action may result from the
26
grievance. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 737; see also Porter, 534 U.S. at 525 (purposes of exhaustion
27
requirement include allowing prison to take responsive action, filtering out frivolous cases, and
28
////
8
1
creating administrative records). The Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reading futility
2
or other exceptions into the PLRA exhaustion requirement. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6.
3
A prisoner need not exhaust further levels of review once he has either received all the
4
remedies that are “available” at an intermediate level of review, or has been reliably informed by
5
an administrator that no more remedies are available. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35
6
(9th Cir. 2005). Because there can be no absence of exhaustion unless some relief remains
7
available, a movant claiming lack of exhaustion must demonstrate that pertinent relief remained
8
available, whether at unexhausted levels or through awaiting the results of the relief already
9
granted as a result of that process. Id. at 936-37.
10
As noted above, the PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies.
11
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an
12
agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can
13
function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.”
14
Id. at 90-91. Thus, compliance with grievance procedures is required by the PLRA to properly
15
exhaust. Id. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or
16
otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 83-84. When the
17
rules of the prison or jail do not dictate the requisite level of detail for proper review, a prisoner's
18
complaint “suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.”
19
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). This is so because the primary purpose of
20
a prison's administrative review system is to “notify the prison of a problem and to facilitate its
21
resolution.” Griffin, 557 F.3d at 1120.
22
If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should file the complaint on the form
23
provided by the Clerk of Court and address the issue of exhaustion as required on the court’s
24
form. Plaintiff is cautioned that raising unexhausted claims may delay resolution of exhausted
25
claims.
26
VII. Requested Relief
27
28
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorney and legal fees, and “injunctive relief in the
form of defendant properly responding to requests for production of documents and things.”
9
1
(ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff is advised that injunctive relief is not an appropriate remedy for a
2
failure to respond to discovery requests, including requests for production of documents and
3
things. Rather, if a defendant fails to provide an appropriate discovery response, plaintiff would
4
file a motion to compel further discovery responses pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). In addition,
5
plaintiff is not represented by counsel; thus, his request for attorney fees is not appropriate.
6
VIII. Leave to Amend
7
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is
8
unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The
9
court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required
10
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a
11
complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones
12
v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at
13
least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's
14
claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),
15
the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended
16
complaint.
17
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
18
complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.
19
Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how
20
each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there
21
is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.
22
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);
23
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory
24
allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of
25
Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
26
A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim
27
and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an
28
opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While
10
1
detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
2
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
3
1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff
4
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
5
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at
6
570).
7
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
8
9
10
11
12
Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions
13
can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are
14
not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.
15
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
16
make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
17
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement is
18
because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.
19
Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original
20
pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
21
original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
22
alleged.
23
24
25
As set forth above, plaintiff may not include unrelated claims in his amended complaint.
George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).
Finally, plaintiff is cautioned that in his amended complaint he may only join multiple
26
claims if they are all against a single defendant, and the facts alleged share commonality and the
27
same transaction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims against
28
different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. Thus, plaintiff must decide which
11
1
claims, identified by the court as cognizable, he will pursue in an amended complaint filed in this
2
action, and which he will file in a separate, newly-filed civil rights complaint. As set forth above,
3
failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of
4
some or all of plaintiff’s claims.
5
IX. Conclusion
6
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
8
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
9
3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended
10
complaint that complies with the instant order, the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the
11
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must
12
be filed on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, bear the docket number assigned this case,
13
and labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and one copy of the amended
14
complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a
15
recommendation that this action be dismissed.
16
4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights complaint by
17
a prisoner.
18
Dated: October 28, 2014
19
20
/lolm2229.14
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
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?