United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
M. KELLISON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 10).
previously explained, the court is required to screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court
must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply,
concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives
the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and
the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone,
84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must
allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts
by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and
conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard.
Additionally, it is impossible for the court to conduct the
screening required by law when the allegations are vague and
fails to state his claims with any more clarity than he did
in his original complaint. They remain vague and difficult to
decipher. In his original complaint, plaintiff named nine
defendants, including law enforcement officers, medical
personnel at Mule Creek State Prison, and his prior attorney.
In his amended complaint, he names new defendants, mostly
medical personnel at Wasco State Prison and California
continues to complains about general “institutional
systemic oppression” and corruption of the health care
system, but fails to allege actual specific facts as to what
specifically has been done wrong. He also continues to allude
to lack of treatment for a knee injury, but the limited facts
alleged make this claim unclear. Any other claim plaintiff is
attempting to state is vague for the undersigned to
was previously cautioned that his allegations are so vague
and conclusory that the court is unable to determine whether
the claims are frivolous, fanciful, or if the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt
a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice
to the defendants and must allege facts that support the
elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.
Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
1984). Plaintiff was also informed that must allege with at
least some degree of particularity overt acts which
defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id.
His amended complaint fails to cure the defects outlined in
the court’s prior order and fails to comply with the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
was informed as to what is required to state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was told that he must allege an
actual connection or link between the actions of the named
defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v.
Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978);
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Vague and
conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official
personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient.
See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific
facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in
the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v.
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition,
any claims added in an amended complaint must have a
reasonable relationship with the claims in the original
complaint. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902
F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).
failed to follow the court’s instructions as to what
was required to state a claim. He also failed to file an
amended complaint that meets the pleading standards required
by Rule 8. As stated above, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and
plain statement of the elements of his or her claim,
identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the
claim and the elements of the prima facie case.”
Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840
(9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to
state his claims and supporting facts. In addition,
plaintiff’s amended complaint names additional and
seemingly unrelated defendants and claims to those alleged in
his amended complaint. Again, as plaintiff was previously
admonished, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a
party to assert “as many claims as it has against an
opposing party, ” but does not provide for unrelated
claims against several different defendants to be raised on
the same action. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18(a). “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.” George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to cure this
defect. Rather, the amended complaint compounds the defect in
that he has attempted to add additional unrelated defendants,
and perhaps even additional unrelated claims.
was given specific and detailed information as to what was
required in order to state a claim. He has failed to follow
the court’s direction to cure the defects in his
complaint. It appears that plaintiff is either unable or
unwilling to amend the complaint in which to state a claim.
Thus, further leave to amend should be denied.
it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified
herein can be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is
not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the
entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiffs
amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim,