Rodriguez v. Corpus

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03008
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWIN NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 25-cv-03008-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DISMISSING THE v. 13 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 CRISTINA CORPUS, et al.,

Defendants. 15

16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Edwin Norberto Rodriguez alleges unrelated claims against different 19 defendants at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 20 containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a). 22 Rodriguez raises a number of unrelated claims against multiple defendants. 23 Because this falls afoul of federal pleading rules, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave 24 to file an amended complaint on or before August 18, 2025. Failure to file a proper 25 amended complaint by August 18, 2025, may result in dismissal of this action under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 27 I will rule on Rodriguez’s motion for the appointment of counsel after I have 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 18 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 20 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 21 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 22 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 23 B. Legal Claims 24 Rodriguez alleges many unrelated claims: the use of excessive force, denial of 25 adequate medical care, denial of adequate mental health care, denial of meals, and the 26 issuance of a false disciplinary report. The events giving rise to these claims happened on 27 different days and were committed by different persons, many of them unnamed in the 1 Rodriguez may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules 2 require that claims be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 3 or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In his amended complaint, he must decide which claim he wishes to 5 pursue. He may then allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is 6 closely related to the facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). Also, he must provide 7 the names of the persons involved. 8 Rodriguez should also be aware that naming the sheriff Cristine Corpus as a 9 defendant based on the fact of her being sheriff is insufficient. There is no respondeat 10 superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is 11 not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the defendants; 12 the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or 13 knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Defendants cannot be held 14 liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were integral 15 participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018). 16 Furthermore, supervisory defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the 17 allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not 18 “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their subordinates’ 19 constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-83. 20 Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Because it is 21 unclear which claims, if any, will proceed, I will rule on Rodriguez’s motion for the 22 appointment of counsel when I review the amended complaint. 23 CONCLUSION 24 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 25 August 18, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 26 used in this order (25-03008 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 27 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear 1 || completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended 2 || complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. 3 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate 4 || material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint 5 || by August 18, 2025 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil 6 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: July 8, 2025 . 9 M H. ORRIC 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28