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

Filing 57

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 DARRYL WILLINGHAM, 4 5 6 7 8 No. C 11-01688 CW (PR) Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM / 9 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 In an Order filed September 12, 2011, the Court reviewed the first amended complaint (FAC) in the instant pro se civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, a state prisoner who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court dismissed the FAC, finding that Plaintiff had failed adequately to link Defendants to identifiable injuries and had not articulated his claims clearly; that many of Plaintiff's claims appeared to be unrelated and Defendants improperly joined under Rules 18(a) and 20(a); and that his attempt to seek relief concerning the validity of his conviction cannot be pursued in a civil rights complaint. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) “in which (1) he clearly links each Defendant to the alleged injury or injuries for which that Defendant is alleged to be responsible, (2) does not raise unrelated claims against different Defendants, and (3) does not challenge the validity of his conviction." Order at 5:4-8. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's SAC, in which he seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief based on (1) alleged injuries caused by employees of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, Plaintiff's criminal attorney and members of the San 1 Francisco Public Defender's Office on unspecified dates between 2 2006 and 2010, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the San Francisco 3 County Jail, and (2) alleged injuries caused by employees of San 4 Quentin State Prison (SQSP), where Plaintiff currently is 5 incarcerated. 6 As noted, in its Order dismissing the FAC with leave to amend the Court explained to Plaintiff that he cannot proceed with a 8 complaint containing unrelated claims or misjoined defendants. 9 the SAC, however, Plaintiff alleges two distinct sets of claims 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 against two distinct groups of Defendants, specifically, claims 11 against Defendants for events that transpired when Plaintiff was 12 incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail between 2006 and 13 2010, and claims against SQSP employees for events that have 14 transpired since Plaintiff was transferred to SQSP in early 2011. 15 In The Court finds these two sets of claims are unrelated and the 16 two groups of Defendants are improperly joined. 17 claims against the SQSP Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice 18 from this case. 19 rights case in this Court against SQSP Defendants, see Willingham 20 v. Pounce, C 11-05391 CW (PR), he may file an amended complaint in 21 that case to include the SQSP Defendants and the claims against 22 them that have been dismissed from this case. 23 Accordingly, the As Plaintiff recently filed a separate civil Additionally, the remaining claims in this case, that is, 24 Plaintiff's claims concerning events that transpired at the San 25 Francisco County Jail between 2006 and 2010, cannot proceed as 26 plead because they are too conclusory and vague to put any 27 Defendant on notice of his or her alleged actions and the resulting 28 constitutional injury. In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 2 1 12(b)(6), a complaint does not require detailed factual 2 allegations; the Supreme Court has made clear, however, that “a 3 plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 4 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 5 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 6 of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 7 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (internal 9 citations omitted). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Bell Here, Plaintiff's allegations concerning the events that 11 transpired when he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County 12 Jail do not adequately show that he is entitled to relief under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 because (1) he has not alleged the specific dates on 14 which the Defendants' actions caused him injury, other than to 15 state such actions occurred between 2006 and 2010, and (2) he has 16 not stated how such actions violated his constitutional rights.1 17 Without such information, Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a 18 claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. 19 Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the SAC is DISMISSED 20 with leave to amend, and Plaintiff is granted one more opportunity 21 to amend his complaint to state cognizable claims for relief 22 concerning the events that transpired when he was incarcerated at 23 the San Francisco County Jail. 24 // 25 // 26 1 27 28 As the Court informed Plaintiff in its prior Order, in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. All claims against the SQSP Defendants are DISMISSED 4 without prejudice from this case. 5 days from the date of this Order file an amended complaint in 6 Willingham v. Pounce, C 11-05391 CW (PR), that includes those 7 Defendants and claims. Plaintiff may within thirty (30) 8 2. Plaintiff's SAC is DISMISSED. 9 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff may file a third amended complaint in order to cure the 11 deficiencies noted above with respect to his claims concerning 12 events that transpired when he was incarcerated at the San 13 Francisco County Jail. 14 4. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes 15 the original complaint. 16 alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the 17 amended complaint." 18 (9th Cir. 1981). 19 no longer defendants. 20 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 Defendants not named in an amended complaint are See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 Plaintiff shall use the court's civil rights complaint form, 22 two copies of which are provided herewith, and include in the 23 caption both the case number of this action, No. C 11-1688 CW (PR), 24 and the heading “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 25 timely file a third amended complaint in conformity with this 26 Order, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and will be 27 closed. 28 4 If Plaintiff fails to 1 4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 2 Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and 3 must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 4 to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. 6 7 8 9 5. The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with two blank civil rights complaint forms. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/6/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Failure 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?