Rhodes v. Ohta et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 10 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 13 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 14 Motion to File a Supplemental Pleading. Third Amended Complaint due by 7/5/2017. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KAVIN MAURICE RHODES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-06805-PJH
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
SAM OHTA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 13, 14

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

14

1983. The first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has

15

filed a second amended complaint (Docket No. 15).

16

DISCUSSION

17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

19

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

21

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

22

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

23

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

24

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

26

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

27

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

28

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed

2

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]

3

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

4

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

5

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

6

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state

7

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme

8

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal

9

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

10

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

14

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

15

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

16

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

17

LEGAL CLAIMS

18

Plaintiff presents many allegations of mistreatment and violations of his rights by

19

correctional officers, prison officials and attorneys at two prisons over the course of

20

several years

21

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a plaintiff must provide “a short and plain

22

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Rule 8 requires

23

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.”

24

McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir.1991)). Accord Richmond v. Nationwide

25

Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir.1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty

26

allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8.) “The propriety of dismissal

27

for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly

28

without merit,” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996).
2

1

Moreover, “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

2

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George

3

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different

4

defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort of “morass” that a multi-

5

claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to ensure that prisoners pay the

6

required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of

7

frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of required fees.”

8

Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

9

The second amended complaint is 47 hand written pages and names
approximately 59 defendants. Plaintiff presents allegations concerning events at two

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

different prisons over the course of several years. He also names as defendants several

12

attorneys, including two deputy attorney generals who litigated his previous cases and a

13

superior court judge. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are engaged in a multi-district

14

racketeering conspiracy to retaliate against plaintiff for the filing of a prior federal civil

15

rights lawsuit. He also raises many other claims and violations of the Racketeer

16

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.

17

The majority of plaintiff’s allegations concern conduct that occurred at Kern Valley

18

State Prison, which lies in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff presents allegations

19

that occurred between February 1, 2014 and August 30, 2016 at Kern Valley State Prison

20

that were committed by more than 30 defendants who were employed at that facility. He

21

also alleges that several attorneys and a judge retaliated against plaintiff while he

22

pursued a prior federal action. Plaintiff’s complaint also contains allegations against

23

approximately 14 defendants who were employed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”),

24

which is in this district. Plaintiff alleges that the PBSP defendants violated his rights after

25

he was transferred to that facility on August 30, 2016.

26

Plaintiff’s complaint in this action illustrates the “unfair burdens” imposed by

27

complaints, “prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity”

28

which “fail to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 11793

1

80. Plaintiff has also presented many unrelated claims. The amended complaint was

2

dismissed with leave to amend to focus on the events that occurred at PBSP. Plaintiff

3

was informed that the allegations that occurred during plaintiff’s incarceration at Kern

4

Valley State Prison and elsewhere were dismissed from this action without prejudice.

5

Plaintiff could file a case or cases concerning these events in the district or districts

6

where they occurred. Plaintiff was also informed that his RICO claim was dismissed from

7

this action and he should only discuss the claims against the PBSP defendants.

8

Plaintiff has not followed the court’s instructions and has instead filed a second
amended complaint that is nearly identical to the amended complaint. The RICO claims

10

and claims against defendants in other districts are dismissed without leave to amend for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

the same reasons as set forth before.

12

Plaintiff will be provided one final opportunity to present his claims against the

13

PBSP defendants. He may not include defendants and claims from the other districts

14

that have been dismissed without leave to amend. If he does include lengthy allegations

15

concerning these defendants and claims, then the entire action will be dismissed

16

regardless if there are cognizable claims against the PBSP defendants. See McHenry at

17

1179. Plaintiff is also informed that he must include all of the allegations in this case in

18

one filing and not in multiple motions and complaints. Plaintiff must also address if he

19

exhausted the claims regarding the PBSP defendants because he previously stated that

20

certain claims were not exhausted.

21
22
23

CONCLUSION
1. The motions to amend (Docket Nos. 10, 13, 14) are GRANTED and the court
has reviewed the second amended complaint.

24

2. The second amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in

25

accordance with the standards set forth above. The third amended complaint must be

26

filed no later than July 5, 2017, and must include the caption and civil case number used

27
28

in this order and the words THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because
an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include
4

1

in it all the cla
aims he wis
shes to pres
sent. See F
Ferdik v. Bo
onzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 1262
3
8,

2

(9t Cir. 1992 He may not incorpo
th
2).
orate mater from the original complaint by reference
rial
e
y
e.

3

Failure to file an amende complain may resu in dismis
ed
nt
ult
ssal of this case.

4

3. It is the plaintif respons
s
ff's
sibility to pro
osecute this case. Pla
aintiff must keep the

5

cou informed of any change of address by filing a separ
urt
d
rate paper w the cle headed
with
erk

6

“No
otice of Cha
ange of Address,” and must com
d
mply with the court's ord
e
ders in a tim
mely

7

fas
shion. Failu to do so may resul in the dism
ure
o
lt
missal of th action fo failure to prosecute
his
or

8

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr
e
rocedure 41
1(b)

9
10

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 5, 2017
5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

13
14

\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2016\2016_06805
5_Rhodes_v_Oh
hta_(PSP)\16-cv-06805-PJH-dwlt
ta3.docx

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

2

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

3
4

KAVIN MAU
K
URICE RHO
ODES,

Case No. 1
16-cv-06805
5-PJH

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

6
7

SA OHTA, et al.,
AM
s.
Defendants

8
9
10

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
Dis

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on June 5, 201 I SERVE a true and correct cop
n
17,
ED
d
py(ies) of the attached, b placing
by
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

16
17
18

Ka
avin Maurice Rhodes ID: D-20245
e
:
Pel
lican Bay State Prison
P.O Box 7500
O.
0
Cre
escent City, CA 95532-7
7000

19
20
21

Da
ated: June 5, 2017

22
23

usan Y. Soon
ng
Su
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26
27

By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N

28
6