United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison,
filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. The Court now
reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
dismisses the complaint with leave to amend within thirty
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed, however.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 127
S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). “Although
in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need
detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a). Rule 20(a)(2) provides that all persons
“may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any
right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,
or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
upshot of these rules is that “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.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different
defendants belong in different suits.” Id.
complaint includes a wide variety of claims, including: (1)
“fraudulent concealment” in relation to his state
court conviction and sentencing; (2) deliberate indifference
to plaintiff's safety, leading to his assault by another
inmate; (3) fraudulent rules violation reports; (4) excessive
force; (5) denial of access to the courts; (6) retaliation;
(7) deprivation of personal property; and (8) deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. The complaint
indicates these various events happened over a span of
approximately thirty years and at several different prisons.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff may only allege claims
that (a) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences, and (b) present
questions of law or fact common to all defendants named
therein. Plaintiff needs to choose the claims he wants to
pursue that also meet the joinder requirements.
Court also notes that plaintiff has failed to identify the
dates on which the alleged violations occurred or how each
defendant acted to cause the violations. Plaintiff should
state each claim separately, and for each separately claimed
violation of his constitutional rights, he must state what
occurred and the dates on which the events occurred. He also
must identify each defendant he proposes to hold liable for
each claim, and allege facts showing what each of those
persons did or failed to do that violated his constitutional
foregoing reasons, the Court ...