Martinez v. Lewis et al

Filing 25

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/8/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RICARDO MARTINEZ,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-00598 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

13
14
15

J. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison

20

(“SVSP”). Plaintiff has filed a response to the last Court order, directing him to file notice

21

of intent with respect to improperly joined claims. (Docket No. 24.)

22
23
24

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s original complaint presented six separate claims against several

25

Defendants, some of whom were named under more than one claim. (Docket No. 1;

26

Docket No. 16 at 2.) In a lengthy initial screening order, the Court dismissed the original

27

complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to attempt to state sufficient facts to support a

28

cognizable § 1983 claim. (Docket No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

1

presenting three claims based on three separate incidents. (Docket No. 18.) The Court

2

dismissed the first claim, Claim I, for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment

3

based on a fainting incident that took place on September 18, 2016. (Docket No. 21 at 5-

4

6.) The dismissal was without leave to amend because Plaintiff was already afforded one

5

opportunity to amend and the Court found no good cause to grant him another opportunity

6

where the deficiencies from the original complaint remained the same. (Id.)

7

The Court found Claims II and III were improperly joined to the action and must be

8

filed in separate actions. (Docket No. 21 at 6-7.) The Court noted that Plaintiff had

9

already been advised in the Court’s initial review order that he raised multiple, unrelated
claims against multiple parties who were not all involved in the same transaction or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

occurrent. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff made the same mistake in the amended complaint as Claims

12

II and III were each based on separate incidents that involved different groups of

13

Defendants, and therefore, were improperly joined in this action. (Id.) Rather than

14

dismissing the improperly joined claims, the Court contemplated severing them and

15

opening them in separate actions. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was directed to file notice as

16

to if and how he wished to proceed with the unrelated claims before imposing unwanted

17

filing fees on him. (Id.)

18

Plaintiff filed a response. (Docket No. 24.) In a single page document titled

19

“Objection Notice to the Court,” Plaintiff states that he “wishes to pursue just the first

20

claim involving the September 18, 2016, incident and not pursue claims II and III of the

21

amended complaint” because of his “poor capability to pursue claims II and III.” (Id.)

22

However, as the Court explained above, that claim involving the September 18, 2016

23

incident has been dismissed without leave to amend, such that Plaintiff may not pursue it

24

any further in this Court. See supra at 1. Since Plaintiff has made clear that he does not

25

wish to pursue Claims II and III, the Court will dismiss the claims based on improper

26

joinder. There being no further relief being available to Plaintiff in this action, it must be

27

dismissed.

28

2

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED. Claim I is dismissed with

3

prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. (Docket No. 21.) Claims II and III are

4

dismissed without prejudice based on improper joinder. (Id.)

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/8/2019
Dated: _____________________

________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Order of Dismissal
PRO-SE\EJD\CR.18\00598Martinez_dism

26
27
28

3