Woods v. Curry et al

Filing 38

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/2/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EARNEST C. WOODS, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BEN CURRY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) No. C 10-1859 JSW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 36) Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Court found 17 that it improperly joined a variety of claims into a single complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 18, 20. Specifically, the complaint asserted claims against 41 different defendants based 19 on a wide variety of unrelated events that occurred at his prison, the California Training 20 Facility (“CTF”), over a substantial period of time. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 21 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (federal joinder rules prohibit prisoner filing “buckshot complaint” 22 that joins unrelated claims against different defendants, e.g. “a suit complaining that A 23 defrauded plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E 24 infringed his copyright, all in different transactions”). Because it could not be discerned 25 which of the broad array of claims Plaintiff would want to eliminate, the case was 26 dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint that, pursuant to federal joinder rules, 27 only included claims that arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 28 transactions or occurrences and present questions of law or fact common to all 1 defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). He was cautioned that his failure to do so would 2 result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. 3 Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint that suffers from the same deficiencies as 4 the original complaint. It names 43 defendants and consists entirely of a narrative 5 recounting over approximately 30 pages a long series of unrelated events that took place 6 at his prison over the course of five years. He asserts a wide variety of constitutional 7 violations against different defendants, but at no point does he list his claims. He also 8 attaches voluminous unlabeled exhibits, which he does not cite or explain. In sum, the 9 amended complaint is a prototypical “buckshot” complaint alleging different and 10 unrelated claims against different defendants. As Plaintiff has been informed that such a 11 complaint is prohibited, and as he has been afforded an opportunity to cure this type of 12 deficiency in his pleadings but has failed to do so, this case is DISMISSED without 13 prejudice to filing a new complaint in a new case that complies with the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff’s renewed request for “appointment” of counsel (dkt. 36) is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 2, 2013 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 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 May 2, 2013, 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: May 2, 2013 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?