Wolinski v. Lewis et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/08/17 ORDERING plaintiff must submit an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order within 30 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,
12
No. 2:17-cv-00583 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
J. LEWIS, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Defendants removed this action from the San Joaquin County Superior Court on March
18
17, 2017.1 ECF No. 2. Attached to their notice of removal was a copy of plaintiff’s complaint.
19
Id. at 6. Plaintiff is a state prisoner and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, defendants now request
20
that the court screen his complaint and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, or which
21
fail to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 2 at 4. After reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court
22
concludes that it fails to comply with the federal rules of civil procedure. Plaintiff will be given
23
leave to amend his complaint.
I.
24
Screening Requirements
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 12) and, on September 8, 2017, the court
recommended that his motion be denied (ECF No. 14). The court’s recommendations are
currently pending before the district judge.
1
1
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
2
screening obligation applies where a complaint is removed from state court. See, e.g., Morris v.
3
Horel, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56938, 2008 WL 686874, *1 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2008)
4
(screening civil rights action removed from state court pursuant to Section 1915A). The court
5
must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
6
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
7
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
8
9
A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
10
Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably
11
meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona,
12
885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute
13
on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490
14
U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded,
15
has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id.
16
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
17
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
18
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
19
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
20
However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more
21
than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
22
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations
23
omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that
24
merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original)
25
(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d
26
ed. 2004)).
27
28
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
2
1
Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
2
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
3
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint
4
under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
5
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading
6
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
7
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
8
9
II.
Analysis
At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff’s complaint, despite having been removed from
10
state court, is now subject to the federal rules of civil procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1)
11
(“These rules apply to a civil action once it is removed from state court.”). Plaintiff’s complaint
12
runs to approximately two-hundred and thirty pages (ECF No. 2 at 6-237) and is largely
13
comprised of various medical, disciplinary, and grievance records. He does not explain how most
14
of these records are directly relevant to his claims. Instead, he categorizes them beneath general
15
headings like “Continuous Deliberate Suppression of Exculpatory Evid., Exonerating Plaintiff
16
from RVR 115.” Id. at 12. The court is able to discern that plaintiff is challenging: (1) his
17
confinement in the Special Housing Unit, on state and federal due process grounds (id. at 9); (2)
18
denial of access to the prison grievance procedure, on state and federal due process grounds (id. at
19
10); and (3) at least one violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (id. at 12, 227).
20
Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) insofar as it does not
21
provide a short and plain statement which gives fair notice of his claims to the defendants. The
22
various documents attached to the complaint, while suitable to support or contextualize clearly
23
stated claims, cannot act as a substitute for those claims. See Davis v. Carlton, 2013 U.S. Dist.
24
LEXIS 174334, *18 n. 1, 2013 WL 6512903 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (“The Court will not comb
25
through attached exhibits seeking to determine whether a claim possibly could have been stated
26
where the pleading itself does not state a claim.”). The overall length and lack of organizational
27
clarity in the complaint also convince the court that amendment is necessary if this action is to
28
proceed.
3
1
Additionally, plaintiff’s complaint appears to state unrelated claims against multiple
2
defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) requires that the right to relief against
3
multiple defendants arise out of common events and contain common questions of law or fact.
4
The court is unable to discern any common questions of law or fact between plaintiff’s various
5
claims. In the event that plaintiff names multiple defendants in his amended complaint, he should
6
bring only related claims against them. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
7
(holding that “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.”).
8
III.
Leave to Amend
9
Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended
10
complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial
11
way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
12
1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act,
13
participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the
14
alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so
15
closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28
16
U.S.C. § 1367(a).
17
18
The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
19
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George,
20
507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as explained above, may he bring unrelated claims against multiple
21
defendants. Id.
22
Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
23
without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
24
complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
25
earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
26
F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
27
being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
28
1967)).
4
1
Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above
2
requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual
3
background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his
4
amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing
5
and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names
6
actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in
7
which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court.
8
IV.
9
Summary of the Order for a Pro Se Litigant
Your complaint is being dismissed with leave to amend. The court has concluded that the
10
current complaint does not give a short, plain statement of your claims. It also concludes that
11
you’ve tried to bring multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. You are being
12
given an opportunity to amend your complaint. If you choose to do so, your complaint should
13
comply with the requirements of this order. Most importantly, your complaint should explain in
14
clear, short statements how your rights have been violated and how each of the named defendants
15
was involved in those violations.
16
V.
Conclusion
17
The court notes that, although plaintiff’s complaint is on the record as an attachment to the
18
notice of removal (ECF No. 2), it has not actually been docketed as a free standing filing. In light
19
of the foregoing, the court will not direct the clerk of court to do so. Instead, it is ORDERED
20
that:
21
22
23
1.
Plaintiff must submit an amended complaint that complies with the requirements
of this order within thirty days; and
2.
He is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of
24
this action for failure to prosecute.
25
DATED: September 8, 2017
26
27
28
5
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?