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)

Download PDF
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

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?