Lester v. San Francisco County Jail et al

Filing 4

ORDER of Dismissal With Leave To Amend (Amended Complaint due by 8/4/2011). Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/5/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

14
15
16
17
18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

No. C 11-3123 WHA (PR)

STEPHEN DWAYNE LESTER,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY BOARD OF PAROLE;
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT; SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL;
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE;
KAMALA HARRIS; DEPUTY NUE;
BAILIFF HERNANDEZ; VILASKA
NGUYEN; MICHAEL MARTEL;
ARAMARK,
Defendants.

19

/
20
INTRODUCTION

21

Plaintiff, an inmate in the San Francisco County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint

22
23

under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

24

order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, it is dismissed with

25

leave to amend.
DISCUSSION

26
27
28

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

1

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

2

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

3

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

4

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

5

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

6

(9th Cir. 1990).

7

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

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

10

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

11
For the Northern District of California

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

9

United States District Court

8

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

12

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

13

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

14

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

15

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

16

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

17

at 1974.

18

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

19

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

20

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

21

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

22

B.

23

LEGAL CLAIMS
The complaint contains a substantial number of improperly joined claims. "A party

24

asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
2

1

or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all

2

defendants will arise in the action." Id. at 20(a)(2).

3

The upshot of these rules is that “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but

4

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant

5

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

6

defendants belong in different suits." Ibid.

7

Plaintiff makes a wide range of allegations about the conditions of his confinement at

8

the county jail between January 23 and February 8, 2011, against eleven named defendants. His

9

allegations include: being assigned an upper bunk, inadequate medical care, denial of the
phones, interference with mail, verbal harassment, interference with his criminal court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proceedings, unsanitary food, a missing lunch, and denial of envelopes. Plaintiff alleges that

12

these violations of his rights were carried out by different defendants, and they do not arise out

13

of the same transaction, occurrence or series of occurrences, and do not involve a common

14

question of law or fact. The complaint is simply a recitation of seemingly all the things that

15

plaintiff has found objectionable during the course of his stay in the county jail. "A buckshot

16

complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A

17

defrauded plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his

18

copyright, all in different transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner." Ibid.

19

Accordingly, the defendants and claims in the complaint are improperly joined.

20

Although a court may strike individual claims that are not properly joined, it cannot be

21

determined here which of the many claims plaintiff may wish to keep and which he wants to

22

omit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Thus, instead of dismissing certain claims and defendants, the

23

complaint is now dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint

24

must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 concerning joinder of claims and

25

defendants, and if it does not then this action will be dismissed.

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty
days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil
3

1

case number used in this order (No. C 11-3123 WHA (PR)) and the words AMENDED

2

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

3

original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.

4

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

5

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance

6

with this order will result in the dismissal of these claims.

7

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

8

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

9

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk
and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also must comply with the curt's orders in a timely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

12

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated: July

5

, 2011.

15

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.11\LESTER3123.LTA.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4