DeJohnette v. Hubbard et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 14 , 15 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING AS UNNECESSARY 16 MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION; DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 2, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2010)

DeJohnette v. Hubbard et al

Doc. 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) S. HUBBARD, et al., ) ) Defendants. _______________________________ ) REGINALD B. DeJOHNETTE, No. C 08-5604 MMC (PR) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING AS UNNECESSARY MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION; DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Docket Nos. 14, 15, 16) On December 16, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad ("CTF-Soledad") and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground the allegations in the complaint were so lengthy, repetitive and unnecessarily detailed that the Court could not readily determine whether plaintiff stated cognizable claims for relief against any of the named defendants. The Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint "in which he clearly and succinctly sets forth each claim for relief and links each defendant to the alleged injury, or injuries, for which that defendant is alleged to be responsible." (Order, filed Aug. 24, 2009, at 4:5-7.) Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Court now reviews.1 DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Plaintiff's Claims The amended complaint is twenty-six pages long and names twenty-six defendants. The events referenced in the complaint occurred between 2005 and 2009. According to plaintiff, all of the defendants have, in one way or another, denied him due process and access to the courts either by refusing to process his administrative appeals and/or denying him the ability to send and receive "confidential legal mail." (AC at Q3:8-23.) Although the Court has been able to discern the above from the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court is unable to determine, as was the case with plaintiff's original complaint, whether the amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief against each of the named defendants. Specifically, as with the original complaint, plaintiff has alleged so

Good cause appearing, plaintiff's requests for an extension of time to file the amended complaint will be granted. Consequently, the amended complaint is deemed timely. 27 Further, plaintiff's request to exceed applicable page limitations will be denied as unnecessary. Northern District Local Rule 7-4 applies to the length of briefs or memoranda 28 filed in support of an opposition or reply, not to the length of a pleading.
2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

many facts pertaining to so many different events and defendants that the amended complaint fails to meet the requirement of Rule 8(a), specifically, the amended complaint does not set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, the amended complaint does not meet the requirements of Rule 8(d), which Rule provides that each allegation of a pleading "must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The amended complaint also appears to be replete with improperly joined claims and defendants. A plaintiff may properly join as many claims as he has against an opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Nevertheless, while multiple claims against a single party may be alleged in a single complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in separate complaints. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under Rule 18(a), prisoner improperly brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims against twenty-four defendants). Further, parties may be joined as defendants only if "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences," Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A), and, "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action," Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(B). As a practical matter, this means that claims involving different parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the events giving rise to the claims were not factually related in some way ­ that is, if there was not "similarity in the factual background." Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are not sufficient to constitute similarity when the specifics are different. Id. In sum, under the above-referenced Federal Rules, plaintiff can proceed with all of his claims against all of the named defendants only if he can assert against each defendant a right to relief that meets the requirements of Rule 20(a). It is clear from the allegations in the amended complaint, however, that the right to relief plaintiff asserts against the twenty-six named defendants, for events that occurred over a four-year period of time, did not arise out of "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences" and that there
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is not a question of law or fact common to all the defendants. Consequently, as the amended complaint does not meet the requirements of Rules 8, 18 and 20, the amended complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff, however, will be granted one further opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the noted pleading deficiencies. In particular, as noted, plaintiff may file either (1) a complaint that brings one or more claims against one defendant, as set forth in Rule 18(a), or (2) a complaint that brings one or more claims against multiple defendants, but only if those defendants can be properly joined under Rule 20(a)(2). Plaintiff's claims that do not satisfy Rule 20(a) must be brought by plaintiff in separate complaints filed in new and separate actions. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to file the amended complaint are hereby GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's request to exceed page limitations is hereby DENIED as unnecessary. 3. The amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the court's form civil rights complaint, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall complete the form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and include in the caption both the case number of this action, No. C 08-5604 MMC (PR), and the heading " SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT." An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and the case will be closed.
4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. This order terminates Docket Nos. 14, 15 and 16. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 2, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

5