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.

Hopkins v. Contra Costa County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 27, 2014

KEVIN L. HOPKINS, Plaintiff,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.


WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.


This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Kevin Hopkins, a pro se state prisoner. After having reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before March 24, 2014.


A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

A "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court "is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff's Complaint

Hopkins appears to be asserting claims involving his treatment in jail facilities run by the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department and in a residential treatment program. He generally alleges that Contra Costa County Sheriff David O. Livingston was deliberately indifferent and failed to train, monitor, supervise and adequately discipline deputies in ways that violated plaintiff's First Amendment and other constitutional rights, but Sheriff Livingston is not named in any of the causes of action alleged. Hopkins asserts in his First Cause of Action that Deputy Crose used "unprofessional language" toward him and later filed a false disciplinary report, an act of retaliation that caused plaintiff to spend three days in isolation and then to be transferred to another facility. In the Second Cause of Action, Hopkins asserts that Deputy Chilimondes screamed obscenities at him. In the Third Cause of Action, Hopkins asserts that Deputy Martinez used excessive force by shoving him. In the Fifth Cause of Action, Hopkins alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because the jail confiscated an orthopedic device, causing serious injury to his knee.

Hopkins states in his Fourth Cause of Action that employees of a residential program to which he had been sent to by the state court, in a conspiracy with the state court, violated his constitutional rights when they terminated him from the program for medical reasons.

C. Analysis

This Order dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend in part because of misjoinder and in part for failure to state a claim. The basis for the Order is explained below.

A party asserting a claim may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party in one lawsuit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a). The Court may allow claims to be joined if they arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20. On the other hand, joinder is not appropriate when transactions are separate and the defendants are different.

Here, the Fourth Cause of Action is stated against the residential program and the state court. It is unrelated to the claims against the sheriff's department. Accordingly, it is not properly joined in this action and is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may ...

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.