8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ANTHONY R. TURNER, 1:18-cv-01574-DAD-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER
13 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULES 18 AND 20, AND FOR 14 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 15 Defendants. (ECF. No. 1.)
16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT EXCEEDING 25 PAGES IN 17 LENGTH
18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Anthony Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 22 this action on October 12, 2018 at the United States District Court for the Northern District of 23 California. (ECF No. 1.) On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this court. 24 (ECF No. 7.) The Complaint is now before the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 25 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 26 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 28 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 3 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 4 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 5 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 7 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 11 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 12 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 13 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 14 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 15 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 16 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 17 plausibility standard. Id. 18 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT -- RULES 18(a) AND 20 19 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California. 20 Most of the events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison 21 (KVSP) in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff names 27 23 defendants, including the Governor of California; CDCR officials; the Warden and Chief Deputy 24 Warden of KVSP; Correctional Officers, Lieutenants, Captains, Sergeants, Counselors, Doctors, 25 and other employees of KVSP. 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint is 33 pages long with 78 pages of exhibits, and difficult to decipher. 27 Plaintiff generally alleges that prison guards conspired to retaliate against him by staging and 28 1 planning assaults on Plaintiff by other inmates. Plaintiff also alleges numerous other claims. For 2 the following reasons, the court shall dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 3 Plaintiff alleges multiple claims in the Complaint that appear to be largely unrelated. 4 Plaintiff may not proceed in one action on a myriad of unrelated claims against different 5 defendants. Plaintiff’s claims violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20. 6 Under Rule 20, a plaintiff may join any person as a defendant if: (1) any right to relief 7 asserted against the Defendant relates to or arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 8 series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there is at least one question of law or fact common 9 to all the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Luis Buenrostro v. Fajardo, 770 F. App’x 807, 808 10 (9th Cir. 2019). 11 Once a defendant is properly joined under Rule 20, the plaintiff may join, as independent 12 or alternative claims, as many claims as he has against that defendant, irrespective of whether 13 those additional claims also satisfy Rule 20. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); Intercon Research Assoc., 14 Ltd. v. Dresser Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 57 (7th Cir. 1982) (“[J]oinder of claims under Rule 18 15 becomes relevant only after the requirements of Rule 20 relating to joinder of parties has been 16 met with respect to the party against whom the claim is sought to be asserted; the threshold 17 question, then, is whether joinder of [a defendant] as a party was proper under Rule 20(a).”). 18 As for Rule 18(a), A[t]he controlling principle appears [as follows]: ‘A party asserting a 19 claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, 20 either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 21 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 22 Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. 23 Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the 24 sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that 25 prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number 26 of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 27 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 28 1 As Plaintiff’s Complaint reads, it is not clear which potential defendants are properly 2 joined. It is also unclear whether any potential claims are connected to each other. Thus, the 3 Complaint shall be dismissed for violation of Rules 18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 5 IV.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 ANTHONY R. TURNER, 1:18-cv-01574-DAD-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER
13 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULES 18 AND 20, AND FOR 14 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 15 Defendants. (ECF. No. 1.)
16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT EXCEEDING 25 PAGES IN 17 LENGTH
18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Anthony Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 22 this action on October 12, 2018 at the United States District Court for the Northern District of 23 California. (ECF No. 1.) On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this court. 24 (ECF No. 7.) The Complaint is now before the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 25 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 26 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 27 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 28 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 3 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 4 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 5 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 7 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 11 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 12 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 13 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 14 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 15 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 16 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 17 plausibility standard. Id. 18 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT -- RULES 18(a) AND 20 19 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California. 20 Most of the events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at Kern Valley State Prison 21 (KVSP) in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff names 27 23 defendants, including the Governor of California; CDCR officials; the Warden and Chief Deputy 24 Warden of KVSP; Correctional Officers, Lieutenants, Captains, Sergeants, Counselors, Doctors, 25 and other employees of KVSP. 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint is 33 pages long with 78 pages of exhibits, and difficult to decipher. 27 Plaintiff generally alleges that prison guards conspired to retaliate against him by staging and 28 1 planning assaults on Plaintiff by other inmates. Plaintiff also alleges numerous other claims. For 2 the following reasons, the court shall dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 3 Plaintiff alleges multiple claims in the Complaint that appear to be largely unrelated. 4 Plaintiff may not proceed in one action on a myriad of unrelated claims against different 5 defendants. Plaintiff’s claims violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20. 6 Under Rule 20, a plaintiff may join any person as a defendant if: (1) any right to relief 7 asserted against the Defendant relates to or arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 8 series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there is at least one question of law or fact common 9 to all the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Luis Buenrostro v. Fajardo, 770 F. App’x 807, 808 10 (9th Cir. 2019). 11 Once a defendant is properly joined under Rule 20, the plaintiff may join, as independent 12 or alternative claims, as many claims as he has against that defendant, irrespective of whether 13 those additional claims also satisfy Rule 20. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); Intercon Research Assoc., 14 Ltd. v. Dresser Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 57 (7th Cir. 1982) (“[J]oinder of claims under Rule 18 15 becomes relevant only after the requirements of Rule 20 relating to joinder of parties has been 16 met with respect to the party against whom the claim is sought to be asserted; the threshold 17 question, then, is whether joinder of [a defendant] as a party was proper under Rule 20(a).”). 18 As for Rule 18(a), A[t]he controlling principle appears [as follows]: ‘A party asserting a 19 claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, 20 either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 21 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 22 Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. 23 Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the 24 sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that 25 prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number 26 of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 27 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 28 1 As Plaintiff’s Complaint reads, it is not clear which potential defendants are properly 2 joined. It is also unclear whether any potential claims are connected to each other. Thus, the 3 Complaint shall be dismissed for violation of Rules 18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 5 IV. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails to state a claim against any of the individual defendants. 7 In the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the individual defendants personally 8 acted against him. Plaintiff refers to “Defendants” throughout the Complaint and alleges that 9 “Defendants” conspired against him, retaliated against him, failed to protect him, failed to 10 provide him with medical care, denied him meals, failed to train officers, set Plaintiff up for 11 ambush, improperly took funds from his trust account, misclassified him, removed his single- 12 cell status, adversely transferred him, discriminated against him, etc. Plaintiff cannot state a 13 claim against any of the defendants unless he demonstrates in his allegations that each of them, 14 identified by name, personally acted or failed to act, violating Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff may 15 not attribute liability to a group of defendants but must “set forth specific facts as to each 16 individual defendant’s” deprivation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 17 1988); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). To state a claim against a 18 defendant, Plaintiff must name the defendant and allege facts showing what that individual 19 defendant did or failed to do, violating his rights. 20 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint violates Rules 22 18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a claim upon which relief 23 may be granted under § 1983. Therefore, the Complaint shall be dismissed, with leave to amend. 24 Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file a First Amended Complaint curing the 25 deficiencies discussed above. 26 The First Amended Complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 27 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 28 rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 1 must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 2 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each 3 defendant is only liable for his own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must 4 demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 5 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant, through his 6 or her own individual actions, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676- 7 77. 8 The First Amended Complaint must comport with Rule 8(a)’s requirement for “a short 9 and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff’s lengthy 10 narrative in the original Complaint does not clearly or succinctly allege facts against the named 11 defendants. Twenty-five pages is more than sufficient for Plaintiff to identify his claims and set 12 forth specific facts in support of those claims. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed 13 with leave to file an amended complaint not exceeding twenty-five pages in length. 14 With respect to exhibits, while they are permissible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not 15 necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The court strongly 16 suggests to Plaintiff that they should not be submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the 17 record and burden the court, or (2) they are intended as future evidence. If this action reaches a 18 juncture at which the submission of evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary 19 judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the opportunity at that time to submit his evidence. Plaintiff 20 is cautioned that it is not the duty of the court to look through all of his exhibits to determine 21 whether or not he has claims cognizable under ' 1983. Rather, the court looks to the factual 22 allegations contained in Plaintiff=s complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff has stated a 23 cognizable claim for relief under ' 1983. 24 Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 25 for the purpose of adding new defendants for unrelated issues. Plaintiff should also note that he 26 has not been granted leave to add allegations of events occurring after the initiation of this suit 27 on October 12, 2018. 28 1 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 2 v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete 3 in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Once an amended 4 complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 5 in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 6 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 7 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 8 under penalty of perjury. 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on August 14, 2018, is DISMISSED for violation of 11 Rules 18(a) and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to state 12 a claim under § 1983, with leave to amend; 13 2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 14 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 15 an amended complaint not exceeding 25 pages; 16 4. Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and 17 refer to the case number 1:18-cv-01574-DAD-GSA-PC; and 18 5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 19 this case be dismissed. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21
22 Dated: August 15, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23
24 25 26 27 28