Reyes v. Young et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/22/2015 GRANTING plaintiff's 6 request to proceed IFP; plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent CDCR order; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID REYES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2711 CKD P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

A. YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

19

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20
21

Plaintiff has 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.

22

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§

23

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the

24

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court.

25

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

26

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

27

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account

28

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
1

1

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

2

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

3

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

4

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

5

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).

15

Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleges a variety of misdeeds by eleven defendants over the

16

course of an eight-year period, 2005 through 2012. His claims cover a wide range of alleged

17

violations of constitutional and/or statutory law, including “negligence, . . . deliberate

18

indifference, unprofessional acts, harassment, retaliation,” and other “cruel and abusive”

19

practices. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) He further alleges that prison officials violated his property and due

20

process rights. Many of these claims appear to be unrelated to one another, and it is unduly

21

burdensome to determine which, if any, state a cognizable claim pursuant to §1983. This

22

complaint illustrates the “unfair burdens” imposed by complaints, “prolix in evidentiary detail,

23

yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity” which “fail to perform the essential functions of a

24

complaint.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80.

25

A major flaw of the complaint is that it attempts to bring numerous unrelated claims in a

26

single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim to relief as an original

27

claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as

28

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an
2

1

opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

2

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith,

3

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in

4

different suits[.]” Id.

5

Additionally, many of plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory. Although the

6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

7

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

8

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

9

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. However, plaintiff will be

10
11

granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint.

12

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

13

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

14

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

15

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

16

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

17

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

18

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

19

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

20

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

21

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

22

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

23

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

24

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

25

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

26

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

27

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

28

////
3

1

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

2

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

3

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees

4

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California

5

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

6

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

7

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

8

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

9

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

10

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and

11

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

12

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

13

Dated: January 22, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19

2 / reye2711.14.new

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4