Cole v. CDCR et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge William Alsup denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 10 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 14 Motion for Leave to File; denying 16 Motion for Leave to File; denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 17 Motion for Leave to File; denying 18 Motion for Leave to File; denying 19 Motion for Leave to File (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JEFFREY T. COLE,

Nos.

C 14-0524 WHA (PR)

9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING
PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiff,
10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

vs.
11
12
13
14
15
16

C.D.C.R.; P.V.S.P; S.V.S.P.; C.S.P. –
LA.C.; M.C.S.P.; NATIVIDAD
HOSPITAL; DR. TABAA; C.M.O.
BRIGHT; DR. L. GAMBOA; DR.
MILLNER; N.P. L. BEY; DR. R.
MACK; B. CHAVARRIA; DR. P.
FINANDER; T. BELAVICH; S.
TSENG; B. CASH; DR. R. RUDAS;
DR. SCOTT ALLEN HEATLY; R.N.
S. ROBERT; DR. SAHIR NASEER;
DR. R. GALLOWAY,

(Dkt. 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19)

17
Defendants
18
/
19
20

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this civil rights

21

case under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The complaint set forth a lengthy narrative complaining about

22

eleven years of medical care at four different prisons for a wide array of medical conditions, and

23

did not describe how the 21 different named defendants were involved in such care. On April 7,

24

2014, the complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days with

25

the following instructions:

26
27
28

[P]laintiff must list each claim, identify the defendant liable on that claim, and
describe the medical care that each named defendant provided or failed to
provide that constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He
must also limit his claims to those taking place while he was incarcerated at
Salinas Valley State Prison.

1

He was further instructed to include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” and the

2

case number for this case on the front page of the amended complaint. He was informed that

3

his failure to comply with these instructions would result in the dismissal of this case.

4

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint in conformity with these instructions. On

5

April 9, the clerk received a form complaint from plaintiff with the instant case number on the

6

front page, and the clerk filed it as an amended complaint (dkt. 8). Plaintiff signed this form

7

complaint on April 2, five days before the order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend.

8

As a result, this form complaint did not comply with the instructions in the order. Specifically,

9

plaintiff included allegations pertaining to, and defendants located at, prisons outside of this
district. Moreover, the allegations in the amended complaint have nothing to do with his

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

medical care. Rather, he complains about an “R” suffix being attached to his prisoner

12

classification, which denotes a past sexual offense. The decision to affix this suffix allegedly

13

took place at a prison outside of this district, although it is possible that plaintiff also means to

14

challenge actions by officials at SVSP to keep using the suffix. Even if that were the case,

15

however, this claim is not properly joined in the same case as the unrelated allegations about

16

plaintiff’s medical care. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20 (prohibiting joinder of unrelated causes of

17

action against different defendants in same case). Because the allegations in the form complaint

18

filed herein as an “amended complaint” pertain to matters outside of this district, are improperly

19

joined to the claims in the original complaint, and do not comply with the order dismissing the

20

original complaint with leave to amend, the claims set forth therein are DISMISSED. The

21

dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff bringing claims about an allegedly improper suffix in

22

a new case filed in the federal district where the defendants are located and their allegedly

23

improper actions took place.

24

Plaintiff has also filed several exhibits and “requests to amend,” none of which comply

25

with the instructions in the order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. First, none of

26

these filings is a complete pleading indicating on the first page that it is a “FIRST AMENDED

27

COMPLAINT.” Second, none of them list each claim, identify the defendant liable on that

28

claim, and describe the medical care that each named defendant provided or failed to provide
2

1

that constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Third, plaintiff continues

2

to assert claims in these documents arising from events that took place outside of this district.

3

Last, they were not filed within the deadline for filing an amended complaint, and plaintiff does

4

not explain the reasons for the delay or seek an extension of the deadline.

5

Because plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint in accordance with the order

6

dismissing his complaint with leave to amend, his claims are DISMISSED with prejudice except

7

as described above. The motions to amend (dkt. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s

8

recent motions for appointment of counsel (dkt. 9, 17) are DENIED for the same reasons that his

9

prior motions were denied. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 10) is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DENIED as moot because he was already granted leave to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated: September
13

23

, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3