Lyle

Filing 18

ORER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JOHN W. LYLE,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

9

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-00426-JSC

Dkt. No. 7

Defendants.

12
INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint

14
15

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against a variety of city and county government employees and the

16

agencies where they work, as well as several hospitals and clinics.1 Plaintiff’s application to

17

proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the

18

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

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

20
21

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

22

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of

23

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

24

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

25

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

26

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

27
1

28

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (ECF No. 7.)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to

5

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to

6

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

7

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

8

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

9

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
LEGAL CLAIMS
The complaint contains a number of improperly joined claims. The federal rules on
joinder are straightforward. “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing
party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). When, as here, there are multiple defendants, they may be joined in
one action only “if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in
the action.” Id. at 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that “multiple claims against a single
party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B
against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). "Unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits." Id. "A buckshot complaint that would be
rejected if filed by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed
him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different
2

1

transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner." Id.
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims of malicious prosecution by the San Mateo County

2
3

District Attorney’s Office, improper arrest and obstruction of a criminal complaint by police

4

officers in Menlo Park and San Jose, assault at a hospital, insufficient medical treatment for a

5

variety of conditions and misuse of medical information by employees of the Palo Alto Medical

6

Foundation, Stanford University Medical Center and the San Mateo County Hospital, ineffective

7

assistance of counsel by his defense attorneys; and interference with mail by employees of the San

8

Mateo County Jail.2 These claims arise out of many different and unrelated incidents. He names

9

approximately seven different Defendants, and the body of his complaint asserts unlawful actions
by numerous additional individuals and entities. He has also filed seven lengthy letters

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

recounting additional violations of his rights by still others. Indeed, his complaint and letters set

12

forth a lengthy narrative that appears to catalogue every incident he finds objectionable over the

13

course of several months. Moreover, Plaintiff does not list his claims in any kind of coherent

14

manner, but instead simply asserts a variety of constitutional violations in the course of recounting

15

his convoluted narrative. As alleged, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction,

16

occurrence or series of occurrences, and do not involve a common question of law or fact.

17

Plaintiff may not assert a grab-bag of unrelated claims against different defendants, and this is

18

precisely what he has done. Accordingly, the Court finds the claims and Defendants improperly

19

joined.
This Court cannot simply strike certain claims that are not properly joined because it

20
21

cannot be discerned which of the many claims Plaintiff may wish to keep and which he wants to

22

omit. Thus, instead of dismissing certain claims and Defendants, the Court will dismiss the

23

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. In his amended

24

complaint, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence,

25

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

26

defendants named therein. Or he may bring multiple claims against a single defendant. Claims

27
28

2

Plaintiff also alleges theft by his mother, although he does not name her as a defendant.
3

1

arising from unrelated incidents against different defendants must be alleged in separate

2

complaints filed in separate cases. Plaintiff will not be given another opportunity to cure these

3

deficiencies after the amended complaint ordered below; if the deficiencies are not cured in the

4

amended complaint, this case will be dismissed.
CONCLUSION

5
6

1.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The amended

8

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 17-0426 JSC

9

(PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page.

10

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

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

12

reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to

13

amend within the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

this action.
2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he
may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is
filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of
this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED until a proper complaint has
been filed and the circumstances of the case require the assistance of counsel for Plaintiff.

22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: April 27, 2017
24
25
26

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
4