Washington v. California Department of Corrections
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/4/2016 RECOMMENDING plaintiff's claim against defendant Lewis relating to his peanut allergy and diet be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM NATHANIEL WASHINGTON,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-2302-MCE-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
/
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. 12).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement
25
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means
26
that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1
1
1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
2
complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
3
rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
4
with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
5
claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
6
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
7
and conclusory.
8
9
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
In his amended complaint, plaintiff attempts to clarify his claims. As he did in his
10
original complaint, plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated relating to
11
lack of treatment for a fractured finger. Specifically, he alleges Dr. Ramos recommended a
12
referral to an orthopedic doctor based on x-rays of his finger. However, defendant Kuersten
13
denied the evaluation request, and directed Dr. Ramos to refer plaintiff to physical therapy. Dr.
14
Ramos examined plaintiff again, and submitted another request for an ortho evaluation. This
15
time defendant Kuersten approved the evaluation, but the orthopedic doctor found because of the
16
delay in treatment the fracture had already begun to heal and only range of motion exercises
17
could be prescribed, and the ligament could no longer be reattached. Plaintiff also raises a new
18
claim relating to a peanut allergy and need for special diet.
19
II. DISCUSSION
20
As addressed in a separate order, the amended complaint sufficiently states a
21
claim against defendant Kuersten relating to plaintiff’s finger fracture. However, as to plaintiff’s
22
attempts to add a new unrelated claim, that claim should be dismissed.
23
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to assert “as many claims as it
24
has against an opposing party,” but does not provide for unrelated claims against several different
25
defendants to be raised on the same action. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18(a). “Thus multiple claims
26
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
2
1
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
2
different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). As plaintiff’s claims
3
relating to his diet and peanut allergy are unrelated to his claims regarding delay in treating his
4
fractured finger, the new claims should not have been raised in the amended compliant.
5
In addition, while plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint in
6
order to attempt to state a claim relating to his fractured finger, he never asked for nor was
7
granted leave to include new and additional claims. Even if plaintiff had requested leave to bring
8
the new claims into this action, that request would have been denied. Where leave of court to
9
amend is sought, the court considers the following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable
10
relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend
11
is in the interest of judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of the entire
12
controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of
13
leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original claim; and (5) whether the
14
opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d
15
1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is
16
frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). As the new
17
claims are unrelated to the original claims, leave to amend would be denied. Therefore, the
18
claims against defendant Lewis relating to plaintiff’s diet and peanut allergy should be dismissed
19
from this action.
20
21
22
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s claim against
defendant Lewis relating to his peanut allergy and diet be dismissed from this action.
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
24
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
26
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
3
1
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
2
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
5
6
DATED: November 4, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?