Franklin v. Flores et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/1/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HAROLD V. FRANKLIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
K. FLORES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

No. C 12-0703 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13
INTRODUCTION

14
15

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42

16

U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff has filed

17

an amended complaint. The Court now reviews the amended complaint, pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915A.

19

The original complaint was dismissed because it joined unrelated claims against

20

different defendants, in violation of the federal rules on the joinder of multiple claims

21

and multiple defendants in a single action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20. Plaintiff was

22

given leave to file an amended complaint that cured this deficiency, and he was

23

cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this case. Plaintiff has

24

filed an amended complaint, but it continues to improperly join unrelated claims against

25

different defendants. Consequently, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to

26

Plaintiff’s filing his claims in a new complaint or complaints that comply with the federal

27

joinder rules as described below.

28

1
2

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review

3

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

4

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

5

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

6

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

7

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

8

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

9

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

10
11

1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

2

1

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

2

II.

3

Discussion
The original complaint set forth a side array of claims that arose from distinct and

4

unrelated incidents, and the claims were asserted against a variety of different

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

When the original complaint was dismissed, Plaintiff was informed of the

21

foregoing federal rules prohibiting joinder of unrelated claims against different

22

defendants in the same complaint. He was told that his amended complaint may only

23

allege claims that (a) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

24

transactions or occurrences and (b) present questions of law or fact common to all

25

defendants named therein, and that claims that do not satisfy these rules must be alleged

26

in separate complaints filed in separate actions.

27
28

3

1

Plaintiff makes the following claims in the amended complaint:

2

(1) Defendants A. Hedgpeth, the SVSP Warden, and M. Cate, the Secretary of the

3

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, placed Plaintiff and other

4

inmates at SVSP on a lock-down between December 27, 2010, and May 11, 2011,

5

following race-based riots at the prison. Plaintiff claims that this violated his right to

6

equal protection because he was locked down based upon his race.

7

(2) He suffered adverse medical effects from being housed with gang members,

8

and that his medical records regarding these issues were falsified. He claims that his

9

right to due process was violated when his administrative appeals regarding these issues

10
11

were denied.
(3) Defendant Sepulveda, the Chief Medical Officer at SVSP, violated his Eighth

12

and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to review the results of a study of Plaintiff’s

13

medical conditions and “specialty treatment” options.

14

(4) His repeated administrative appeals led to retaliation by unnamed SVSP

15

officials. This alleged retaliation included being assigned a cell with a gang member, not

16

receiving a response to administrative appeals regarding the use of force, and being

17

threatened with disciplinary proceedings.

18

(5) Defendant K. Flores, an SVSP official, physically injured him, and afterwards

19

Flores and another SVSP official, Defendant D. Avalos, falsified a document to “cover

20

up” that incident.

21

(6) He was denied law library access.

22

(7) He was punished for disciplinary violations without exculpatory video

23

evidence being preserved for the disciplinary hearing.1

24
25

1

27

Some of the claims in the original complaint arose out of incidents at prisons outside of
the venue of this Court. Plaintiff was ordered to include in his amended complaint only claims
arising out of prisons within this Court’s venue, which he has done. All of his claims allegedly
arose at Salinas Valley State Prison.

28

4

26

1

The amended complaint continues to violate the federal joinder rules by asserting

2

an array of unrelated claims against different defendants. The original complaint

3

suffered from this same problem, and Plaintiff was ordered to correct it in his amended

4

complaint. He was informed that if he did not correct this deficiency, his case would be

5

dismissed. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice

6

to Plaintiff filing his claims in a new federal civil rights action or actions in which he

7

complies with the federal joinder rules set forth above.

8

CONCLUSION

9

In light of the foregoing, the instant case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

10

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: June 1, 2012

13
14

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
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
HAROLD V FRANKLIN,

Case Number: CV12-00703 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
K FLORES 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 June 1, 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

19

Harold V. Franklin AA6298
California State Prison - Corcoran
4001 King Avenue
P.O. Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8800

20

Dated: June 1, 2012

17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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