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)

Download PDF
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

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?