Hawes v. Marin County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended complaint due by 10/25/13. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 9/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

v.

12

14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff,

11

13

No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)

TERRY RAY HAWES,

MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, and
ROBERT DOYLE,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

19

prisoner. After review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court

20

DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before October 15,

21

2013.

22
23
24

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

25

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

26

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

27

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

28
No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

3

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

4
5

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

6

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

7

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

8

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

9

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

11

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

B.

17

Legal Claims
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges various First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims

18

against various named and unnamed defendants. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave

19

to amend for two reasons. First, plaintiff must name each specific defendant, and allege

20

sufficient facts showing how that specifically-named defendant violated his rights. Simply

21

naming Marin County and the Marin County Sheriff as defendants, or making broad,

22

conclusory, undetailed allegations, is not sufficient.

23

Second, plaintiff may join in this action only those parties if the claims against them

24

arise from the same set of operative facts. Parties may be joined as defendants in one action

25

only “if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with

26

respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

27

occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the

28
No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

1

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). “A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a

2

free person — say, a suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched

3

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

4

should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

5

2007). Simply put, plaintiff must choose one set of claims to pursue in the present action,

6

e.g., his medical claims, or his religious claims, or his due process claims. Relief for the

7

claims he chooses not to pursue in this action may be raised in separate civil rights actions.

8
9

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before October 25, 2013. The first
amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(13-1711 JCS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.

11

It must also address all deficiencies discussed above. Because an amended complaint

12

completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended

13

complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.

14

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate

15

material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in

16

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to

17

plaintiff.

18

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

19

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

20

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask

21

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

22

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

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: September 11, 2013
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3