Willingham v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/12/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

DARRYL WILLINGHAM,

4
5
6
7

No. C 11-01688 CW (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,
Defendants.

8

/

9
INTRODUCTION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, initiated the instant pro se
civil rights action on April 7, 2011, when he filed a document
seeking immediate injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Since

then, Plaintiff has filed in this action a civil rights complaint,
an amended complaint, eight documents titled "Statement of Claim"
and sixteen letters.

These pleadings, documents and letters range

in length from 1 to 83 pages, and in some instances include
numerous exhibits.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
§ 1915A(a).

See 28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
construed.

See id.

Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1988).

1

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

2

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

3

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

4

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

5

under color of state law.

6

(1988).

7

defendant only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant

8

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right.

9

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

Under § 1983, liability may be imposed on an individual

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's amended complaint

11

(docket 9), which the Court construes as the operative pleading

12

herein, will be dismissed with leave to amend.

13

Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding

14

amended complaint supersedes initial complaint and may not

15

incorporate by reference any parts of original complaint).

16

See London v.

DISCUSSION

17

It is exceptionally difficult to glean from Plaintiff's

18

numerous pleadings, documents and letters what his claims are and

19

what relief he seeks.

20

difficult to read that the Court can barely decipher what Plaintiff

21

has written.

22

clearly what injury he has suffered, who caused such injury and

23

what he would like the Court to do.

24

lengthy legal and factual arguments with no concise statement of

25

the claims themselves.

26

types of relief, some of which appear to pertain to the validity of

27

his criminal conviction and others which appear to pertain to the

28

conditions of his confinement at San Quentin State Prison.

In particular, Plaintiff's handwriting is so

Further, nowhere does Plaintiff state succinctly and

Instead, Plaintiff narrates

Additionally, Plaintiff refers to various

2

1

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

2

that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the

3

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

4

that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant that

5

violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the notice

6

requirements of Rule 8(a).

7

F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982).

8

requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and

9

direct.”

A complaint

See Hutchinson v. United States, 677
Additionally, Rule 8(e)

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix,

11

replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

12

federal rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless

13

must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the

14

claim and the “grounds upon which it rests.”

15

127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted).

16

While the

Erickson v. Pardus,

Here, Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed as plead because

17

Plaintiff has not clearly and concisely set forth his claims

18

against Defendants or directly linked Defendants to his

19

allegations.

20

individuals in his pleadings, including individuals who are not

21

named as Defendants, and fails adequately to link those who are

22

named as Defendants to an identifiable injury.

23

Plaintiff does directly link some individual Defendants to some of

24

his allegations, the allegations are so lengthy and repetitive that

25

the Court cannot readily determine all of the injuries for which

26

each Defendant allegedly is liable.

27
28

In particular, Plaintiff refers to numerous

Additionally, while

Further, many of Plaintiff’s claims appear to be unrelated.
plaintiff may properly join as many claims as he has against an
3

A

1

opposing party.

2

multiple claims against a single party may be alleged in a single

3

complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be

4

alleged in separate complaints.

5

607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under Rule 18(a), prisoner improperly

6

brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims against twenty-four

7

defendants).

8

“there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the

9

alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

Nevertheless, while

See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

Further, parties may be joined as defendants only if

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

11

occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all

12

defendants will arise in the action.”

13

practical matter, this means that claims involving different

14

parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the facts

15

giving rise to the claims are not factually related in some way --

16

that is, if there is not “similarity in the factual background.”

17

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997).

18

allegations are not sufficient to constitute similarity when the

19

specifics are different.

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

As a

General

Id.

In sum, even when Plaintiff’s claims are liberally construed,

21

Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficiently simple, concise and

22

direct information for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff’s

23

allegations state cognizable claims for relief with respect to each

24

of the named Defendants.

25

Moreover, Plaintiff appears to be seeking relief that concerns

26

not only the conditions of his confinement but also the validity of

27

his conviction.

The latter type of relief cannot be pursued in a

28
4

1

civil rights complaint but must be brought in a habeas corpus

2

petition.

See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006).

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED.

4

Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint in which (1) he

5

clearly links each Defendant to the alleged injury or injuries for

6

which that Defendant is alleged to be responsible, (2) does not

7

raise unrelated claims against different Defendants, and (3) does

8

not challenge the validity of his conviction.

9

must, in filing his amended complaint, provide sufficient

While Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information to give Defendants fair notice of the nature of the

11

claims against them, Plaintiff should not provide a lengthy

12

narrative with respect to each Defendant to satisfy the pleading

13

requirements of Rule 8.

14

concise statement identifying each Defendant and the specific

15

action or actions that Defendant took, or failed to take, that

16

allegedly caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional

17

rights, as well as the injury resulting therefrom.

18

Instead, Plaintiff should provide a

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not consider

19

as part of Plaintiff's pleadings in this matter any information

20

sent to the Court in a letter, a document titled "Statement of

21

Claim" or any other document that is not a pleading signed under

22

penalty of perjury.

23

included in the second amended complaint, which will supercede all

24

of Plaintiff’s prior pleadings in this matter.

25

Rather, all of Plaintiff’s claims must be

CONCLUSION

26

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

27

1.

Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED.

28
5

1

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order,

2

Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint in order to cure the

3

deficiencies noted above.

4

rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and

5

include in the caption both the case number of this action,

6

No. C 11-1688 CW (PR), and the heading “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiff shall use the court's civil

7

If Plaintiff fails to timely file a second amended complaint

8

in conformity with this Order, the case will be dismissed without

9

prejudice and will be closed.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

3.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case.

11

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

12

must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.

13

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

15
16
17
18

4.

Failure

The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a

blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/12/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3

IN RE DARRYL WILLINGHAM,
Case Number: CV11-01688 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
IN RE DARRYL WILLINGHAM et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

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 September 12, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, and a blank
civil rights complaint form 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.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Darryl Willingham AE8217
3D22
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974
Dated: September 12, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7