Gonzales-Turner v. Muniz, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 7 MOTION for an Order of Intervention. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/7/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 ANTHONY R. TURNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) MUNIZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. __________________________________ ) No. C 14-3525 JSW (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING MOTION FOR INTERVENTION (Dkt. 7) 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Anthony R. Turner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this pro se civil 18 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of a class of other inmates. For the 19 reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The application 20 to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 23 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 24 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 25 is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 26 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need 27 detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 28 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 1 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 2 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 3 Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer 4 "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se 5 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 6 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 8 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 9 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 10 law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 11 LEGAL CLAIMS 12 This case may not proceed as a class action. Pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not 13 adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests 14 of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Russell 15 v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) ("a litigant appearing in propria persona 16 has no authority to represent anyone other than himself"). Consequently, the claims that 17 Defendants, officials at Salinas Valley State Prison, are violating the rights of the class of 18 the inmates at that institution by denying them adequate medical care, law library access, 19 office supplies and photocopies, communication with family members, and safety and 20 protection, are dismissed. 21 Furthermore, Turner claims that Defendants are violating orders in various class 22 actions. The complaint seeks an order holding Defendants in contempt and enjoining 23 them from violating such orders, as well as money damages. An individual suit for 24 injunctive and equitable relief from allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions may be 25 dismissed when it duplicates an existing class action's allegations and prayer for relief. 26 See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). To the extent Turner seeks 27 relief based upon the violation of orders issued in other cases, he must do so in those 28 cases, not in a separate action of his own. 1 Turner also presents claims that Defendants are improperly processing 2 administrative appeals. Such claims are not cognizable under Section 1983 because there 3 is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See 4 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 Plaintiff may not bring a class action, enforce orders from other cases in a separate 6 case of his own, obtain declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of claims covered in 7 pending in pending class actions, or bring claims based on improper processing of 8 administrative appeals. Accordingly, the instant case is dismissed without prejudice to 9 Plaintiff bringing claims on his own behalf, claims for money damages, or claims 10 injunctive or other equitable relief to the extent they are not covered by a pending class 11 action. He 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. In 14 light of the separate order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s 15 motion for Court intervention in prison officials’ releasing trust account information is 16 DENIED as unnecessary. 17 The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: October 7, 2014 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 ANTHONY RECARDO GONZALES-TURNER, 7 8 9 10 Case Number: CV14-03525 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiff, v. MUNIZ et al, Defendant. / 11 12 13 14 15 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 October 7, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, 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. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Anthony Recardo Gonzales-Turner G-27511 Salinas Valley State Prison (1050) Mental Health Department P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960-1050 Dated: October 7, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?