Johnson v. Chau et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/30/2018 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 47 motion for leave to amend. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1536 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. CHAU, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with this civil rights

18

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended

19

complaint in which he alleges that despite plaintiff’s complaints that current medications do not

20

control his severe pain, defendants Dr. Chau, Dr. Pettersen, Dr. Rudas, and Dr. Smith refused

21

plaintiff’s request to prescribe tramadol and morphine, both of which successfully managed his

22

severe pain while he was housed at two prior prisons. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Defendants have

23

answered the complaint, and a scheduling order has issued.

24

On August 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

25

Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint. As

26

a prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma

27

pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed second

28

amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.
1

1

Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not amend his pleading to raise unrelated claims. A

2

plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. In

3

addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is

4

asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the

5

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law

6

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated

7

claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith,

8

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a

9

multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the

10

required filing fees -- for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous

11

suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1915(g).” George, 507 F.3d at 607.

13

Moreover, plaintiff is required to first exhaust available administrative remedies as to any

14

prison condition claim. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); 42 U.S.C.

15

§ 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of

16

this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

17

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Exhaustion is a

18

precondition to suit; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation is insufficient. McKinney,

19

311 F.3d at 1199-1200.5.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF

21

No. 47) is denied without prejudice.

22

Dated: August 30, 2018

23
24
/john1536.10b

25
26
27
28
2