(PC) Cole v. McFadden-Jensen et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 3/29/2021. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 2/18/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2021) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEIN COLE,
Plaintiff,

5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

6
7

Case No. 20-cv-06400-WHO (PR)

R. MCFADDEN-JENSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

8

INTRODUCTION

9

Plaintiff Stein Cole’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

an amended complaint on or before March 29, 2021. His allegations contain unrelated

12

and factually insufficient claims against more than thirty defendants at three different

13

prisons, one of which is outside this district. This is improper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In

14

the amended complaint, Cole must decide which of his claims to pursue, as discussed

15

below. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline, or a failure to comply

16

in every respect with the instructions given in this order, likely will result in the dismissal

17

of this suit and the entry of judgment in favor of defendants.
DISCUSSION

18
19
20

A.

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

21

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

22

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

23

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

24

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

25

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

26

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

27
28

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

7

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

8

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

10

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

B.

13

Legal Claims
Cole raises claims against more than thirty defendants who are employed at three

14

different prisons--Mule Creek State Prison, CTF-Soledad, and Salinas Valley State Prison.

15

He raises claims under (i) the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and

16

Institutionalized Persons Act for religious discrimination and retaliation; (ii) the

17

Rehabilitation Act; (iii) the Americans With Disabilities Act, (iv) the Fourteenth

18

Amendment; and (v) the Eighth Amendment.

19

Many of the alleged incidents occurred at Mule Creek State Prison, which is not in

20

the Northern District. Accordingly, all Mule Creek defendants and claims are

21

DISMISSED without prejudice to Cole filing suit against these defendants in the Eastern

22

District of California, where Mule Creek is located.

23

Many of Cole’s remaining claims are based on unrelated incidents occurring at

24

different prisons (CTF-Soledad and Salinas Valley) by different persons. This is improper.

25

He may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules require that claims

26

be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”

27

and pose a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

28

In his amended complaint, he must decide which claim he wishes to pursue. He may then
2

1

allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is closely related to the

2

facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). As should be clear from that instruction, in

3

the amended complaint Cole must choose to bring his claim(s) against either (i) the CTF-

4

Soledad defendants or (ii) the Salinas Valley defendants.

5

His religious exercise claims are deficient for a separate reason. He has not

6

described what religion he follows, or exactly how his exercise of this religion has been

7

inhibited. It fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

8
9

For those reasons, Cole’s Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. I
DISMISS without leave to amend his claims for injunctive relief against defendants at
CTF-Soledad and Salinas Valley. Because plaintiff is now housed at Mule Creek,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

injunctive relief claims at the other two prisons are moot.
CONCLUSION

12
13

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint in

14

accordance with the discussion above on or before March 29, 2021. The amended

15

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (20-06400

16

WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The

17

amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s form. Because an amended

18

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

19

amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes

20

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

21

incorporate material from the prior complaints by reference.

22

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order likely will result

23

in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to

24

prosecute.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: February 18, 2021
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

27
28
3