Humes v. Green et al
Filing
26
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/18/2019 ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 21 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint be dismissed and the Clerk be directed to close the case. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JON HUMES,
12
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-2610-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY GREEN, et al.,
15
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he has filed an amended
19
complaint.
20
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
21
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
23
of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
24
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
25
relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
26
Prior to the issuing its initial screening order, plaintiff filed a total of four complaints.
27
ECF Nos. 1, 14, 16, 18. Those complaints named a combination of Mary Green, Placer County,
28
and/or the State of California as defendants. See id. The first complaint asserted a defamation
1
1
claim based on the Placer County District Attorney’s Office’s alleged preparation of a false report
2
identifying plaintiff as a sex offender. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff’s subsequent complaints largely
3
echoed those allegations. ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18. They also alleged that plaintiff’s daughter had
4
made false claims against him and that he had been denied his right to due process. ECF No. 14
5
at 3; ECF No. 16 at 4. In dismissing all four of plaintiff’s complaints, the court informed plaintiff
6
of the legal standards governing his intended claims for relief and explained why his allegations
7
could not survive screening pursuant to those standards. ECF No. 19 at 3-4.
8
9
In the fifth complaint, now before the court for screening (ECF No. 21), plaintiff asserts
an excessive force claim and an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against two previously
10
unnamed defendants. The amended complaint does not reference the claims asserted in the four
11
prior complaints, and consequently, fails to cure the defects in those claims which were
12
previously addressed by the court. Instead, the fifth complaint alleges only new, unrelated
13
claims. Neither the new defendants nor the new claims may be properly joined in this action. 1
14
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2). If plaintiff wishes to pursue unrelated claims against
15
additional defendants, he must pursue them in a separate action. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
16
605, 607 (9th Cir. 2007).
17
The court granted plaintiff leave to amend for the purpose of curing the defects in his
18
original claims. ECF No. 19 at 4. Notably, the court warned plaintiff that in any amended
19
complaint, he could “not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
20
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).” Id. at 4. Plaintiff has both failed to comply
21
with the court’s screening order and to cure the defects in his original claims for relief.
22
/////
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
“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).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
2
1
Therefore, this action should be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,
2
203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only
3
required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to
4
grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d
5
494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to
6
amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the
7
allegation of other facts.”).
8
9
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a
United States District Judge to this action.
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 21) be
11
dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order and for failure to state a claim upon which
12
relief may be granted, and the Clerk be directed to close the case.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
18
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
19
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
DATED: April 18, 2019.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?