1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 2:22-cv-1790-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging numerous violations of his civil rights 20 (ECF No. 1) as well as a motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff also filed a motion for 21 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) but subsequently paid the filing fee. As 22 discussed below, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot, his 23 complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, and it is recommended that his motion for injunctive 24 relief be denied. 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening because it violates Rule 8. A sufficiently 26 plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” 27 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Read together, the two captions of 28 plaintiff’s complaint list the following defendants: California Department of Corrections; Office 1 of Inspector General; Healthcare-POP; Office of Internal Affairs; the State of California; Prison 2 Law Office; Coleman; State of California Department of Justice (Xavier Becerra); Rosen, Dien, 3 Galvan, & Grunfeld, LLP; Office of Internal Affairs; and California Correctional Health Care 4 Service. ECF No. 1 at 1, 2. While the captions identify mostly institutional and supervisory 5 defendants, the body of the complaint refers to dozens of specific individuals who are not 6 identified as defendants, but who are the alleged violators of plaintiff’s civil rights. Although the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, Rule 8 requires that a 8 complaint provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against them. Jones v. Community 9 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th 10 Cir. 1991). Here, the defendants identified in the complaint’s captions are not clearly linked to 11 plaintiff’s claims and none of the individuals named in the body of the complaint are identified as 12 defendants. Thus, it is confusing as to who plaintiff intends to sue through this action. Further, 13 the conclusory nature or plaintiff’s allegations and how, if at all, each individual was directly 14 responsible for any violation of plaintiff’s rights, convinces the court that the complaint does not 15 put defendants on notice of the claims against them. 16 The complaint also fails screening because it improperly joins unrelated claims in a single 17 lawsuit. Plaintiff complains of wide-ranging civil rights deprivations (including, among others, 18 the denial of the right to marry, a lack of basic necessities, due process violations in disciplinary 19 proceedings, excessive force, mail interference, property issues, threats to his safety, problems 20 accessing the court, interference with religion, denial of medical care, and retaliation). See, e.g., 21 ECF No. 1 at 8, 15. The settings for these alleged deprivations are spread out across eight 22 separate prisons on unspecified dates. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1, 3, 4 (identifying Salinas 23 Valley State Prison, Kern Valley State Prison, North Kern Valley State Prison, California 24 Medical Facility, California State Prison Sacramento, Wasco State Prison, California Men’s 25 Colony, and California Health Care Facility as the institutions where the alleged violations 26 occurred). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a claimant to raise unrelated claims 27 against different defendants in a single action. Instead, a plaintiff may add multiple parties where 28 the asserted right to relief arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and a common question 1 of law or fact will arise in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims involving 2 different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.1 3 To the extent plaintiff intends to bring this action on behalf of himself and his fiancé, 4 Fidella D’Angel Armijo, the court cautions him that he may not bring this action on behalf of 5 anyone other than himself. See ECF No. 1 at 8 (identifying Armijo as a co-plaintiff in document 6 directed to the Sacramento County Superior Court).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 2:22-cv-1790-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging numerous violations of his civil rights 20 (ECF No. 1) as well as a motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff also filed a motion for 21 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) but subsequently paid the filing fee. As 22 discussed below, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot, his 23 complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, and it is recommended that his motion for injunctive 24 relief be denied. 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening because it violates Rule 8. A sufficiently 26 plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” 27 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Read together, the two captions of 28 plaintiff’s complaint list the following defendants: California Department of Corrections; Office 1 of Inspector General; Healthcare-POP; Office of Internal Affairs; the State of California; Prison 2 Law Office; Coleman; State of California Department of Justice (Xavier Becerra); Rosen, Dien, 3 Galvan, & Grunfeld, LLP; Office of Internal Affairs; and California Correctional Health Care 4 Service. ECF No. 1 at 1, 2. While the captions identify mostly institutional and supervisory 5 defendants, the body of the complaint refers to dozens of specific individuals who are not 6 identified as defendants, but who are the alleged violators of plaintiff’s civil rights. Although the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, Rule 8 requires that a 8 complaint provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against them. Jones v. Community 9 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th 10 Cir. 1991). Here, the defendants identified in the complaint’s captions are not clearly linked to 11 plaintiff’s claims and none of the individuals named in the body of the complaint are identified as 12 defendants. Thus, it is confusing as to who plaintiff intends to sue through this action. Further, 13 the conclusory nature or plaintiff’s allegations and how, if at all, each individual was directly 14 responsible for any violation of plaintiff’s rights, convinces the court that the complaint does not 15 put defendants on notice of the claims against them. 16 The complaint also fails screening because it improperly joins unrelated claims in a single 17 lawsuit. Plaintiff complains of wide-ranging civil rights deprivations (including, among others, 18 the denial of the right to marry, a lack of basic necessities, due process violations in disciplinary 19 proceedings, excessive force, mail interference, property issues, threats to his safety, problems 20 accessing the court, interference with religion, denial of medical care, and retaliation). See, e.g., 21 ECF No. 1 at 8, 15. The settings for these alleged deprivations are spread out across eight 22 separate prisons on unspecified dates. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1, 3, 4 (identifying Salinas 23 Valley State Prison, Kern Valley State Prison, North Kern Valley State Prison, California 24 Medical Facility, California State Prison Sacramento, Wasco State Prison, California Men’s 25 Colony, and California Health Care Facility as the institutions where the alleged violations 26 occurred). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a claimant to raise unrelated claims 27 against different defendants in a single action. Instead, a plaintiff may add multiple parties where 28 the asserted right to relief arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and a common question 1 of law or fact will arise in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims involving 2 different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.1 3 To the extent plaintiff intends to bring this action on behalf of himself and his fiancé, 4 Fidella D’Angel Armijo, the court cautions him that he may not bring this action on behalf of 5 anyone other than himself. See ECF No. 1 at 8 (identifying Armijo as a co-plaintiff in document 6 directed to the Sacramento County Superior Court). Pro se litigants have no authority to 7 represent anyone other than themselves; therefore, they lack the representative capacity to file 8 motions and other documents on behalf of others. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 9 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others 10 than himself,’”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 11 1987)); see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-attorney 12 plaintiff may not attempt to pursue claim on behalf of others in a representative capacity). 13 Leave to Amend 14 Plaintiff may choose to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure and states a cognizable claim. Any amended complaint must identify as a 16 defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a 17 federal constitutional right. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person 18 subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in 19 another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged 20 deprivation). 21 /////
22 1 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule 23 Civ. P. 18. In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out 24 of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 25 Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of 26 morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners 27 pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 1 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 3 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 4 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 5 multiple defendants. Id. 6 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 7 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 8 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 9 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 10 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 11 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 12 1967)). 13 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 14 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 15 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 16 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 17 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 18 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 19 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 20 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 22 See Local Rule 110. 23 Motion for Injunctive Relief 24 Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. ECF No. 8. However, he fails to meet the minimum 25 threshold for merit to satisfy the standard for a preliminary injunction.2 At an irreducible 26 2 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be 27 indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir.1964). The moving party must prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits, “that 28 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 1 || minimum, he must demonstrate that there is at least a fair chance of success on the merits. 2 || Johnson vy. California State Board of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995); 3 || Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982). As discussed 4 || above, his complaint must be dismissed and at present he has shown no likelihood of success on 5 || the merits of any claim. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief must be denied. 6 Order and Recommendation 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 9 moot. 10 2. The complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service 11 of this order. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action 12 for the reasons stated herein. 13 Further IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 14 | (ECF No. 8) be denied. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 20 || within the specified time may waive the night to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 21 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 || Dated: January 5, 2023. oat od 4 “2 24 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 || preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an imjunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. 28 | Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)).