(PC) Blackwell v. Jenkins

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00442
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, No. 2:19-cv-0442 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. JENKINS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 19 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) and 20 three separate amended complaints filed simultaneously (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18). For the reasons 21 set forth below, the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the 22 complaints, and direct plaintiff to file one amended complaint. 23 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 26 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 27 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 28 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 1 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 2 forward it to the Clerk of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 3 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 4 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 5 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(b)(2). 7 BACKGROUND 8 Plaintiff initiated this action on March 13, 2019. However, plaintiff did not sign his 9 complaint. (See ECF No. 1 at 20.) Because the court cannot consider unsigned filings, the 10 original complaint was stricken from the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 11 and Local Rule 131. (ECF No. 8.) The court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint 12 and advised plaintiff that unrelated claims against multiple defendants should be brought in 13 separate actions. 14 It appears that plaintiff took literally, the court’s advisement that separate claims belong in 15 separate complaints. The court will clarify that unrelated claims against different defendants 16 should be brought in entirely separate actions. Allegations related to different defendants may 17 only be brought in the same case if the allegations arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, 18 or series of transactions and occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. 19 of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). 20 Additionally, an amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 21 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, any prior complaint no longer 22 serves a function in the case. (Id.) Thus, the third amended complaint (ECF No. 18), supersedes 23 the other two complaints. However, because it appears that plaintiff misinterpreted the court’s 24 prior advisement, it will dismiss the amended complaints and provide plaintiff another 25 opportunity to file one amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure and the Local Rules. 27 //// 28 //// 1 SCREENING 2 I. Legal Standards 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 5 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 6 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 7 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 15 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 16 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 17 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 18 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 19 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 20 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 21 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 22 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 23 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 24 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 25 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 26 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 27 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 28 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . 1 . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 2

3 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 4 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 5 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 6 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 7 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 8 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 9 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 10 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 11 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 12 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 13 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 14 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 15 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 16 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 17 II. Allegations in the Amended Complaints 18 As set forth above, in response to the court’s advisement that separate claims belong in 19 separate complaints, plaintiff filed three separate complaints. The first complaint filed (ECF No. 20 16) contains allegations against defendants Jenkins, Bartkiewiecz, and Prakash. The second (ECF 21 No. 17) contains allegations against Dr. Dmytrienko and the third complaint (ECF No. 18) 22 contains allegations against correctional counselor McFadden. 23 A. Allegations Against Jenkins, Bartkiewiecz, and Prakash 24 Plaintiff claims officers Jenkins, Bartkiewiecz, and Prakash violated his rights in 25 connection with two rules violations reports he received for possession of inmate manufactured 26 alcohol. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff claims these defendants planted evidence to use against him in 27 violation of his due process rights. 28 //// 1 B. Allegations Against Dmytrienko 2 Plaintiff claims Dmytrienko has failed to provide plaintiff with adequate medical care in 3 violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because he has failed to provide plaintiff with 4 medication that will treat his pain without exacerbating his other health conditions. (ECF No. 5 17.) 6 C. Allegations Against McFadden 7 Plaintiff claims McFadden violated his rights to due process and equal protection during 8 classification committee hearings. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff claims McFadden told him that in 9 order to receive a specific prison work assignment he would need to take the Test of Adult Basic 10 Education (TABE). He claims he was prevented from taking the entire test so that he could not 11 score high enough to get a better job placement. 12 III. Unrelated Claims against Different Defendants Belong in Different Suits 13 As the court noted of the original unsigned complaint, plaintiff has presented three 14 separate claims that involve different defendants, different facts, and unrelated issues of law. 15 Plaintiff is again informed that he may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a 16 single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 17 2011) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits and complaints 18 violating that principle should be rejected). While multiple claims against a single party may be 19 alleged in a single complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in 20 separate suits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under Rule 21 18(a), prisoner improperly brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims against twenty-four 22 defendants). 23 Plaintiff may only bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim(s) 24 arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) 25 there are common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. 26 of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). As a practical matter, this means that claims 27 involving different parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the facts giving rise to the 28 claims were not factually related in some way—that is, if there was not “similarity in the factual 1 background.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are 2 not sufficient to constitute similarity when the specifics are different. Id. The fact that several of 3 plaintiff’s claims involve allegations of retaliation does not necessarily make claims related for 4 purposes of Rule 18(a). Id. at 1351. 5 The court is unable to discern any common questions of law or fact between plaintiff’s 6 claims. Additionally, trying to proceed with these disparate claims in a single case would be 7 practically difficult, if not impossible. If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint he should 8 assert only claims arising from common events and containing common questions of law or fact. 9 See George, 507 F.3d at 607 (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different 10 suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], 11 but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform 12 Act limits to 3 three the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without 13 prepayment of the required fees.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Alternatively, plaintiff may 14 select a single defendant and bring as many claims as he has against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 18(a). 16 IV. Amending the Complaint 17 In any amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he 18 complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, 19 the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. 20 Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s action 22 and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 23 Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 24 are not sufficient.” Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 25 Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 26 and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 27 to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 28 defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The 1 charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of 2 the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in 3 support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 5 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 6 R. Civ. P 10(b). The amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action 7 is brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It 8 must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons 9 who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional 10 right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional 11 right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally 12 required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 13 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 14 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 15 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 17 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 18 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 19 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 20 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 21 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 22 reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 23 prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 24 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 25 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 26 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 27 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 4 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 5 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order 7 to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 8 concurrently herewith. 9 3. Plaintiff's amended complaints (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18) are dismissed. 10 4. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended 11 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 13 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First 14 Amended Complaint.” 15 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the civil rights complaint 16 form. 17 6. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 18 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 19 | Dated: November 6, 2019

21 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 DLE. | Onden/PrsonenCivil Right? sen