United States District Court, E.D. California
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 motion for leave to amend (Doc. 13).
filed the original complaint in the Fresno Division of this
court, naming the wardens of California State Prison -
Corcoran (“Corcoran”) and California State Prison
- Solano (“Solano”) and various other officers at
those institutions. Plaintiff was an inmate at Corcoran at
the time he commenced the action. In a July 8, 2016, order
transferring the action to the Sacramento Division, Chief
Judge O'Neill described plaintiff's claims as
follows: “(1) a Fourth Amendment claim based on his
allegation that he was forced to submit to urinalysis without
reasonable suspicion, and (2) an Eighth Amendment claim
regarding the conditions he endured as punishment for
violating prison rules related to the urinalysis, including
that he was denied medical care during this period.”
Chief Judge O'Neill also noted: “While the
Complaint does not explain what conduct is alleged to have
occurred at which facility, Plaintiff attached a copy of the
Rules Violation Report that documents that the urinalysis,
and at least some of the disciplinary proceedings that
followed, occurred at [Solano].”
transfer of the case to the Sacramento Division, plaintiff
filed a document entitled “Amendment of Civil Pleading,
” which is docketed as a first amended complaint (Doc.
10). Responding to the transfer order, plaintiff states that
he is complaining of events at Corcoran. Plaintiff
specifically states: “Corcoran Prison is the
institution which caused this harm.” As to Solano,
plaintiff states: “Plaintiff has prior civil tort claim
in appellant review against Solano Prison for same
acts.” Attached to plaintiff's filing is an Eastern
District form prisoner civil rights complaint in which he
complains of a forced urine test on February 17, 2015.
Plaintiff states on the form complaint that the events took
place at Corcoran and he names only Corcoran prison staff as
November 2016 plaintiff filed a notice of change of address
indicating that he had been transferred to Salinas Valley
State Prison (“SVSP”). On March 3, 2017,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend (Doc. 13). In
this document, plaintiff states that he wants to include
allegations against staff at Solano and SVSP for “a
continued cause of action from 8-20-2013 to 1-28-2017.”
Filed with plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is a
second amended complaint (Doc. 14) plaintiff captions
“Amended Complaint.” Based on a November 23,
2015, order form the Solano County Superior Court attached to
the pleading, it appears that plaintiff's “prior
civil tort claim” against Solano was dismissed without
leave to amend. Plaintiff now names defendants at Solano,
Corcoran, and SVSP. Part of the filing is a copy of Doc. 10.
to plaintiff's claims are allegations relating to
mandatory drug testing at the three prisons, refusal to
submit to drug tests, and the consequences thereof.
the first amended complaint, plaintiff made it clear that
this action was initiated with the goal of raising claims
against defendants at Corcoran. With the pending motion for
leave to amend and proposed second amended complaint,
plaintiff now seeks to expand the litigation to include
claims against defendants at Solano and SVSP.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may
amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course within
21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is one to
which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after
service of the responsive pleading, see Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1)(A), or within 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever time is
earlier, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all other
situations, a party's pleadings may only be amended upon
leave of court or stipulation of all the parties.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Where leave of court to
amend is required and sought, the court considers the
following factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable
relationship between the original and amended pleadings; (2)
whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of
judicial economy and will promote the speedy resolution of
the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in
seeking leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to
amend would delay a trial on the merits of the original
claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced
by amendment. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawai'i,
902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be
denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff 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).
“A person ‘subjects' another to the
deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in
another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act
which he is legally required to do that causes the
deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 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).
the original complaint and the first amended complaint, the
proposed second amended complaint is frivolous in that it
fails to state a claim for relief. Specifically, plaintiff
does not link any alleged wrongdoing to any named defendant.
Plaintiff names as defendants 32 Solano officers, 8 Corcoran
officers, and 8 SVSP officers. Nowhere in the second amended
complaint, however, does plaintiff state what any of the
named defendants are alleged to have done, with the exception
of the various prison wardens and other supervisory
defendants whom plaintiff alleges are responsible under a
respondeat superior theory. For this reason, the court will
not grant leave to file the proposed second amended
complaint, which will be disregarded.
point, the action proceeds on the first amended complaint
alleging claims against Corcoran officers only. It is clear,
however, that plaintiff intends this action to proceed on his
claims against defendants at all three prisons. In the
interests of justice and for the good of the record, the
court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to file a second
amended complaint containing in a single pleading all of his
claims against the various defendants at the three prisons,
and containing sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate
a causal link between the alleged wrongdoing and each of the
named defendants. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file
a second ...