Woods v. Curry et al

Filing 33

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/9/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EARNEST C. WOODS,

8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BEN CURRY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

No. C 10-1859 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

13
INTRODUCTION
14
Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42
15
U.S.C. § 1983. He has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
16
case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Ninth Circuit reversed and
17
remanded to this Court for further proceedings. The Complaint is now reviewed
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and it is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty
19
days.
20
DISCUSSION
21
I.

Standard of Review

22
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
23
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
24
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
25
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or
26
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a
27
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be
28

1

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

2

1990).

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

4

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

5

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

6

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

7

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

8

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

9

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

10

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

11

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

12

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

13

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se

14

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

15

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

16

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements:

17

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

18

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

19

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

20

II.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Discussion
The complaint contains a number of improperly joined claims. Federal Rule 20

provides:
All persons. . .may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted
against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants
will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

27
28

2

1

The federal rules on joinder are straightforward. “A party asserting a claim,

2

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative

3

claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). The

4

rules are somewhat different when, as here, there are multiple parties. Multiple parties

5

may be joined as defendants in one action only "if any right to relief is asserted against

6

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

7

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law

8

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Id. at 20(a)(2). The upshot of

9

these rules is that “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

10

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George

11

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). "Unrelated claims against different

12

defendants belong in different suits." Id. "A buckshot complaint that would be rejected

13

if filed by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed

14

him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different

15

transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner." Id.

16

Plaintiff names 41 defendants. His four claims arise from a wide variety of

17

different and unrelated incidents. He alleges, among many other things, that he was

18

denied law library access, improperly given an upper bunk, denied kosher meals, had his

19

trust account frozen, subjected to excessive force, placed in mechanical restraints that

20

were too tight, denied adequate care for his back, had his medical condition

21

misdiagnosed, strip searched, had his personal property taken, forced to eat with his

22

hands, disciplined without due process, given inadequate medication. He lists four

23

different claims – for retaliation, the denial of adequate medical care, the failure to

24

protect his safety, and the confiscation of his personal property. These different claims

25

all arise from distinct incidents involving different prison officials. As alleged, his

26

claims did not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of occurrences, and

27
28

3

1

do not involve a common question of law or fact. Indeed, Plaintiff appears to be

2

complaining in a single complaint about virtually everything that has happened to him

3

that he finds objectionable in the year after he was transferred to California Training

4

Facility. Rule 20(a) requires that a plaintiff cannot assert a grab-bag of unrelated claims

5

against different defendants. This is precisely what Plaintiff has done. Accordingly, the

6

Court finds the claims and defendants improperly joined.

7

Although a Court may strike individual claims that are not properly joined, the

8

Court cannot here determine which of the many claims Plaintiff may wish to keep and

9

which he wants to omit. Thus, instead of dismissing certain claims and defendants, the

10

Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 21. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out

12

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (b)

13

present questions of law or fact common to all defendants named therein. Claims that do

14

not satisfy Rule 20(a) must be alleged in separate complaints filed in separate actions.

15

The amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)

16

concerning joinder of claims and defendants, and if it does not, then this action will be

17

dismissed.

18

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff may only include Defendants who were

19

involved in the incidents that give rise to the properly joined claims he chooses to

20

present. Moreover, the amended complaint must allege how each Defendant violated his

21

constitutional rights by alleging the actions or inactions the Defendant took that

22

proximately caused the claimed constitutional violation. Plaintiff may not, as he has

23

done in the Complaint, simply list a large number of Defendants and in conclusory

24

fashion claim that they collectively violated his constitutional rights.

25
26

Plaintiff will not be given another opportunity to cure these deficiencies after the
amended complaint ordered below; if the deficiencies are not cured in the amended

27
28

4

1

complaint, this case will be dismissed.

2

CONCLUSION

3

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall

4

file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is

5

filed. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

6

(No. C 10-1859 JSW (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED

7

COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces

8

the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992),

9

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original or amended complaints by

10

reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance with this order

11

will result in the dismissal of this action.

12

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

13

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

14

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

15

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2012

18
19

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
EARNEST C. WOODS II,

Case Number: CV10-01859 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
BEN CURRY et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 9, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16

18

Earnest C. Woods D 58091
P.O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 95696

19

Dated: October 9, 2012

17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk