1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 20-07534 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO v. 13 AMEND
14 M.B. ATCHLEY, et al., 15 Defendants.
17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVPS”), as 20 well as the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 21 (“CDCR”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, for 22 Plaintiff to correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint 23 in which he includes the names of other inmates as plaintiffs, and asserts new claims based 24 on different incidents from those alleged in the original complaint. Dkt. No. 20. For the 25 reasons discussed below, the amended complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 26 /// 27 /// 1 DISCUSION 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, however, be liberally 9 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 11 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 12 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 13 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Other Named Plaintiffs 15 As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s naming of other inmates as 16 plaintiffs in this action. Dkt. No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is not an 17 attorney, thus he may not represent other litigants. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 18 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 19 represent anyone other than himself”). Alternatively, although less clear, Plaintiff may have intended to file this case as a 20 class action, naming himself and two other plaintiffs as class representatives along with 21 other unnamed inmates. Dkt. No. 20 at 5, ¶ 1. Plaintiff is also prohibited from prosecuting 22 a class action on behalf of other similarly situations because pro se prisoner plaintiffs are 23 not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the 24 interests of the class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see 25 also Russell, 308 F.2d at 79. Accordingly, Plaintiff, as a pro se prisoner, cannot 26 1 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot 2 adequately represent class). The other “plaintiffs” listed on the complaint shall be 3 removed from this action. If they desire to pursue any claims on their own, they must do 4 so by each filing a separate action. 5 C. Plaintiff’s Claims 6 As mentioned above, Plaintiff attempts to bring this action on behalf of several 7 plaintiffs, and therefore throughout the amended complaint refers to himself and others 8 generally as “plaintiff(s).” Dkt. No. 20 at 5-7. The amended complaint alleges that from 9 June through December 2020, and January through June 20201, “plaintiff(s)” filed several 10 letters, prisoner inmate requests, and grievances against defendants “S. Tomlinson, D. 11 Farmer, L. Farley, M. B. Atchley, and Director of CDCR” regarding the following: “law 12 library access, services, resources, paging, such as, for example; Case-law citations, legal 13 research materials needed to file prison grievances; legal book-check-outs; discovery 14 evidence; legal manila envelopes; writing materials-pens/draft paper; that are need by 15 plaintiffs to initiate, maintain, and prosecute prison grievances, appeals, court ordered 16 deadlines for [various cases].” Id. at 5. These requests were “repeatedly ignored, 17 destroyed and denied.” Id. Also on various dates in April, May, and July 2021, Defendant 18 Tomlinson and “staff in charge of prison law library services and resources” repeatedly 19 read “plaintiff(s) confidential legal pleadings without consent.” Id. Furthermore, on 20 February 17, 2021, “plaintiff(s) presented [Defendant] M. Ayon… legal pleadings for 21 court ordered deadlines… to be copied” and that Defendant Ayon refused to do so. Id. at 22 6. When “plaintiff(s)” requested the return of confiscated legal documents, Defendant 23 Ayon refused and sounded the prison emergency alarm “out of retaliation to obstruct, 24 impair, impede, and frustrate plaintiff(s) right for redress of grievance.” Id. Then the 25 “[p]laintiff(s) was removed from law library and locked in a single man unsanitary dummy 26 cage over many hours, inadequate of space, movement, water, toilet access, and 1 humiliate, intimidate, punish, to stop from further complaining as an adverse action… for 2 exercising 1st Amendment rights.” Id. at 6-7. Defendant Ayon issued a Rules Violation 3 Report “charging plaintiff(s) with disciplinary actions knew to be false out of retaliation 4 because plaintiff filed and submitted a grievance complaint against defendant(s) for 5 February 17th, 2021, incident.” Id. at 7. There was another incident on April 6, 2021, 6 when ISU officers raided “plaintiff(s) cell quarters without notice while plaintiff was using 7 toilet facilities and forced plaintiff(s) out of cell and made to strip naked in presence of 8 housing unit prisoners, and female correctional officer,” also in retaliation. Id. at 7. The 9 amended complaint also asserts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims but fails to 10 identify or explain any specific state law claim. Id. at 8. 11 The allegations in the amended complaint are problematic because the factual 12 allegations are not individualized but rather asserted generally as to all “plaintiff(s).” 13 Therefore, it is impossible for the Court to ascertain which allegations specifically involve 14 Mr. Saddozai, who is the only plaintiff in this matter, and which allegations should be 15 stricken as involving other prisoner/plaintiffs who have been dismissed from this action. 16 Accordingly, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to 17 amend for Mr. Saddozai to file a second amended complaint containing allegations solely 18 involving the deprivation of his constitutional rights. 19 In filing a second amended complaint, Plaintiff should be mindful of the 20 deficiencies in his original complaint discussed by the Court in the “Order of Dismissal 21 with Leave to Amend.” Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff is also reminded that although he may 22 include state law claims, he must specifically identify the state law claims he is raising 23 rather than assert generally that the Court may take supplemental jurisdiction over them.
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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 20-07534 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO v. 13 AMEND
14 M.B. ATCHLEY, et al., 15 Defendants.
17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVPS”), as 20 well as the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 21 (“CDCR”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, for 22 Plaintiff to correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint 23 in which he includes the names of other inmates as plaintiffs, and asserts new claims based 24 on different incidents from those alleged in the original complaint. Dkt. No. 20. For the 25 reasons discussed below, the amended complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 26 /// 27 /// 1 DISCUSION 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, however, be liberally 9 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 11 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 12 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 13 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Other Named Plaintiffs 15 As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s naming of other inmates as 16 plaintiffs in this action. Dkt. No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is not an 17 attorney, thus he may not represent other litigants. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 18 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to 19 represent anyone other than himself”). Alternatively, although less clear, Plaintiff may have intended to file this case as a 20 class action, naming himself and two other plaintiffs as class representatives along with 21 other unnamed inmates. Dkt. No. 20 at 5, ¶ 1. Plaintiff is also prohibited from prosecuting 22 a class action on behalf of other similarly situations because pro se prisoner plaintiffs are 23 not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the 24 interests of the class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see 25 also Russell, 308 F.2d at 79. Accordingly, Plaintiff, as a pro se prisoner, cannot 26 1 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot 2 adequately represent class). The other “plaintiffs” listed on the complaint shall be 3 removed from this action. If they desire to pursue any claims on their own, they must do 4 so by each filing a separate action. 5 C. Plaintiff’s Claims 6 As mentioned above, Plaintiff attempts to bring this action on behalf of several 7 plaintiffs, and therefore throughout the amended complaint refers to himself and others 8 generally as “plaintiff(s).” Dkt. No. 20 at 5-7. The amended complaint alleges that from 9 June through December 2020, and January through June 20201, “plaintiff(s)” filed several 10 letters, prisoner inmate requests, and grievances against defendants “S. Tomlinson, D. 11 Farmer, L. Farley, M. B. Atchley, and Director of CDCR” regarding the following: “law 12 library access, services, resources, paging, such as, for example; Case-law citations, legal 13 research materials needed to file prison grievances; legal book-check-outs; discovery 14 evidence; legal manila envelopes; writing materials-pens/draft paper; that are need by 15 plaintiffs to initiate, maintain, and prosecute prison grievances, appeals, court ordered 16 deadlines for [various cases].” Id. at 5. These requests were “repeatedly ignored, 17 destroyed and denied.” Id. Also on various dates in April, May, and July 2021, Defendant 18 Tomlinson and “staff in charge of prison law library services and resources” repeatedly 19 read “plaintiff(s) confidential legal pleadings without consent.” Id. Furthermore, on 20 February 17, 2021, “plaintiff(s) presented [Defendant] M. Ayon… legal pleadings for 21 court ordered deadlines… to be copied” and that Defendant Ayon refused to do so. Id. at 22 6. When “plaintiff(s)” requested the return of confiscated legal documents, Defendant 23 Ayon refused and sounded the prison emergency alarm “out of retaliation to obstruct, 24 impair, impede, and frustrate plaintiff(s) right for redress of grievance.” Id. Then the 25 “[p]laintiff(s) was removed from law library and locked in a single man unsanitary dummy 26 cage over many hours, inadequate of space, movement, water, toilet access, and 1 humiliate, intimidate, punish, to stop from further complaining as an adverse action… for 2 exercising 1st Amendment rights.” Id. at 6-7. Defendant Ayon issued a Rules Violation 3 Report “charging plaintiff(s) with disciplinary actions knew to be false out of retaliation 4 because plaintiff filed and submitted a grievance complaint against defendant(s) for 5 February 17th, 2021, incident.” Id. at 7. There was another incident on April 6, 2021, 6 when ISU officers raided “plaintiff(s) cell quarters without notice while plaintiff was using 7 toilet facilities and forced plaintiff(s) out of cell and made to strip naked in presence of 8 housing unit prisoners, and female correctional officer,” also in retaliation. Id. at 7. The 9 amended complaint also asserts supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims but fails to 10 identify or explain any specific state law claim. Id. at 8. 11 The allegations in the amended complaint are problematic because the factual 12 allegations are not individualized but rather asserted generally as to all “plaintiff(s).” 13 Therefore, it is impossible for the Court to ascertain which allegations specifically involve 14 Mr. Saddozai, who is the only plaintiff in this matter, and which allegations should be 15 stricken as involving other prisoner/plaintiffs who have been dismissed from this action. 16 Accordingly, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to 17 amend for Mr. Saddozai to file a second amended complaint containing allegations solely 18 involving the deprivation of his constitutional rights. 19 In filing a second amended complaint, Plaintiff should be mindful of the 20 deficiencies in his original complaint discussed by the Court in the “Order of Dismissal 21 with Leave to Amend.” Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff is also reminded that although he may 22 include state law claims, he must specifically identify the state law claims he is raising 23 rather than assert generally that the Court may take supplemental jurisdiction over them. 24 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1 || named plaintiffs are also dismissed without prejudice to each filing individual and separate 2 || actions. See supra at 2-3. This matter shall proceed with Mr. Saddozai as the sole plaintiff 3 || in this action. All other individuals named as plaintiffs shall be terminated from this 4 || action. 5 2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 6 || twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a second amended 7 || complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed above. The second amended 8 || complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. 20- g || 07534 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 10 || If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in 11 || order for the action to proceed. 2 The second amended complaint supersedes the original and the amended E 13. || complaints, which will be treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San S 14 || Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in 3 15 || the second amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in the 16 || second amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 5 17 || 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 5 18 3. Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided by 19 || filing a second amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this action with 20 || prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice to Plaintiff. 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: — October 14, 2021 bos cesar) 33 BETH LABSON F REEMAN United States District Judge 24 25 Order Dismissing Amended Compl. with Leave to Amend PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\07534Saddozai_dwlta.FAC 27