Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gil v. Yates

March 1, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge


(Doc. 24)

Order After Screening First Amended Complaint

I. Background

Plaintiff Francisco Gil ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on March 24, 2009. On September 18, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On November 16, 2009, after receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. First Amended Complaint

A. Rule 18(a)

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), where the alleged incidents giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants: chief medical officer F. Igbinosa, doctor Salazar, doctor Kim, doctor Ortiz, doctor Kushner, doctor Neubarth, doctor Seifert, doctor Diep, doctor Castillo, doctor Duenas, doctor Samsom, doctor Vilaysane, doctor Phi, doctor Hong, doctor Amadi, doctor Birring, doctor Paja, doctor Nguyen, R.N. S. Pasha, R. N. Manasreo, R. N. Medina, R. N. Griffith, R. N. Davis, R. N. Ryan, LVN Hilts, LVN K. Malloy, LVN Johnson, 602 HC appeals coordinators Cassity and A. Nesbit, health care 602 HC associate director of third level appeals for CDCR T. Kimura-Yip, the medical authorization review committee, appeals coordinator for American With Disabilities Acts inmates J. Herrera, physical therapist Stephen Chabak, appeals coordinator C. Hudson, captain M. C. Davis, and correctional counselor II C. Cano. Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's first amended complaint and finds that it contains numerous unrelated claims against numerous defendants. Claim A concerns Defendants Salazar and Kim for events occurring in 2002 after Plaintiff's arrival at PVSP. Claim B concerns Defendants Ortiz, Kushner, Neubarth, and Pasha regarding events in 2003 (Ortiz and Neubarth) and 2005 (Kushner and Pasha) following a MRI. Claim C concerns Defendants Henderson, Martinez, Hudson, Shannon, Herrera, Manared, and Seifert after a prison riot in 2006. Claim D concerns Defendants Coleman, Castillo, Duenas, and Diep for events occurring in 2007. Claim E concerns Defendants Griffith, Medina, Shannon, and Herrerra after Plaintiff submitted an ADA form in 2007. Claim F concerns Defendants Davis, Samson, Chabak, Kilts, Vilaysane, Malloy, Birring, Tucker, Dutra, Ryan, Phi, Alvarez, Igbignosa, Amadi, Huang or Hong, Paja, and Nguyen for events occurring between 2008 and 2009. Claim G concerns Defendants Yates, Grannis, and T. Kimura-Yip and their role as supervisory defendants from 2006 to 2009. Claim G also concerns Defendants Johnson, Nesbit, Cassity, Stringer, and Clark regarding a medical apparatus in 2009. Claim G also concerns Defendants Patrick and Cano for events in 2006, and Defendant Autum for events in 2009.

The only thing that ties all defendants together is that all defendants were at some point allegedly involved in medical care for Plaintiff at PVSP, whether it be through the providing of medical care or lack thereof, retaliation, or responding to various requests and inmate appeals. However, Plaintiff's unrelated claims are in violation of Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) 'A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.' Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners 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 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

The Court has screened Claim B and finds that it states some cognizable claims. All other claims are dismissed from this action without prejudice for violation of Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may pursue those claims in separate actions. Plaintiff is warned again that multiple unrelated claims with unrelated ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.