Rhodes v. Ford

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, Case No. 20-cv-03128-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25 10 D. FORD, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2020, and 15 the court ordered service on October 30, 2020. Plaintiff seeks to add several defendants 16 and claims regarding events in December 2020 and January 2021. Assuming that these 17 claims are fully exhausted, a prisoner may only satisfy the exhaustion requirement as 18 long as he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing an amended complaint. 19 See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2010) (amended complaint 20 raised new claims which arose after the original complaint was filed); Cano v. Taylor, 739 21 F.3d 1214, 1220–21 (9th Cir. 2014) (amended complaint raised new claims which arose 22 prior to the filing of the initial complaint). These allegations could not have been 23 exhausted until after the filing of the amended complaint and cannot be brought in this 24 action. 25 To the extent plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint and bring these 26 claims, any such request is denied. “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but 27 Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against 1 against different defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort of 2 “morass” that a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to ensure that 3 prisoners pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the 4 number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of 5 required fees.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Here plaintiff seeks to add new claims 6 against new defendants. While the allegations in this action involve retaliation and the 7 new claims also involve retaliation, plaintiff has not shown that the new claims are 8 sufficiently linked to the current claims. Plaintiff may file a new action against these 9 defendants. 10 For the foregoing reasons: 11 1. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the pleadings (Docket No. 25) is DENIED. 12 Plaintiff may raise the claims in a separate action. The clerk shall send plaintiff a blank 13 civil rights form and application to proceed in forma pauperis. 14 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 24) is DENIED. No defendants have 15 appeared in this case so a motion to compel is premature. Plaintiff is informed that court 16 staff has been in contact with the United States Marshal regarding service of defendants 17 and will continue to monitor the case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 22, 2021 20 21 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27