Johnson

Filing 49

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING 46 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

1

United States District Court

2

Northern District of California

3
PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.

Case No.: C 11-01975 CW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Docket no. 46)

6
LIEUTENANT TOBY, et al.,
7
Defendants.
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present pro se civil

11

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he was incarcerated at

12

the California State Prison - Solano (CSP-Solano).

13

about the conditions of his confinement during a period of

14

incarceration at the Sonoma County Jail (SCJ) in 2009.

15

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

16

He complains

He has

The Court conducted an initial review of the allegations in

17

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found the

18

complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

19

granted, for the following reasons:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed as plead because
Plaintiff has not clearly and concisely set forth his
claims against Defendants or directly linked Defendants
to his allegations. In particular, Plaintiff has not
specified the correctional officers who were involved
in the September 11, 2009, cell extraction or the
supervising officers who “turned a blind eye” to the
methods employed in that extraction. He has not
described in any detail nor linked any of the
Defendants to the yard counseling schemes. He does not
describe with particularity the injuries which were
caused or worsened by SCJ medical personnel’s alleged
failure to treat him. He does not identify the
policies employed by the institutional Defendants that
allegedly violate his constitutional rights.

28
Docket no. 34 at 4:5-17.

1

Additionally, the Court found that “Plaintiff’s pleadings

2

are also deficient in that they fail to include information

3

sufficient for the Court to determine whether his various claims

4

are related.

5

lack of medical care is related by anything other than

6

chronological proximity to the cell extraction.”

7
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

It is not clear whether his complaint regarding

Id. at 4:18-22.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave
to amend, as follows:
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in which he
(1) alleges facts sufficient for the Court to determine
whether he states a claim for the violation of his
constitutional rights, (2) clearly links each Defendant
to the alleged injury or injuries for which that
Defendant is alleged to be responsible, (3) does not
raise unrelated claims against different Defendants,
and (4) clearly specifies the relief he requests for
each alleged injury and links that relief to a
particular Defendant or Defendants.
Id. at 5:23-6:3.
Subsequently, on June 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended

17

complaint; he also informed the Court that he had been released

18

from prison.

19

did not name any Defendants and stated that he did not know the

20

names of the individuals responsible for his injuries.

21

alleged that unnamed correctional officers at SCJ captured on

22

videotape the use of excessive force against him, but, because of

23

his incarceration at CSP-Solano, he had been unable to obtain the

24

names of the officers or the videotape, and also had been unable

25

to obtain the names of the jail officials who failed to provide

26

him with adequate medical care.

27

Docket nos. 36, 37.

In the amended complaint, he

He

He asked the Court to provide

him with subpoenas so he could discover the Defendants’

28
2

1

identities and amend his complaint at a later date.

2

thereafter, Plaintiff notified the Court that he had been

3

returned to SCJ.

4

Shortly

Docket no. 40.

On August 7, 2012, the Court issued an order finding that

5

“[b]ecause Plaintiff now is incarcerated at the same jail where

6

the alleged Defendants are employed, his incarceration at CSP-

7

Solano no longer limits his ability to discover their identities.

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas is DENIED without

9

prejudice.”

Docket no. 43 at 3:12-16.

Additionally, in that

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

same order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second

11

amended complaint that adequately names and links Defendants to

12

his claims, and informed him that “[h]is failure to timely file

13

an amended complaint within twenty-eight days will result in the

14

dismissal of this action without prejudice.”

15

Id. at 19-21.

Fifty-two days later, on October 1, 2012, Plaintiff, who by

16

then was incarcerated at the Martinez Detention Facility,

17

requested an extension of time to file his second amended

18

complaint because he had not been able to obtain the information

19
20
21

necessary to amend.

On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff notified the

Court that he had been released from custody and now resides in
Rohnert Park.

Since then, Plaintiff has not filed a second

22
amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the Court.
23
This action has been pending for nineteen months.

Plaintiff

24
has been given two opportunities to correct pleading deficiencies
25
but has failed to do so, claiming that he has been unable to
26
access the pertinent information due to his incarceration at CSP27
Solano and the Martinez Detention Facility.
28
3

During the relevant

1

time period, however, Plaintiff also was incarcerated at the SCJ,

2

where the alleged events occurred, and was released from custody.

3

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has been given

4

every opportunity to obtain the information he needs in order to

5

correct the noted pleading deficiencies but has failed to do so

6

in compliance with the Court’s orders and in a timely manner.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to
file his second amended complaint is DENIED, and this case is

9

DISMISSED without prejudice to his filing a new action raising

10
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

these same claims should he obtain the information necessary to

11

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

12

however, is cautioned that his claims will be subject to

13

dismissal if they are time-barred.

14
15

Plaintiff,

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the
file.

16

This Order terminates Docket no. 46.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

11/20/2012
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4