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)
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?