United States District Court, E.D. California
DAVID W. WILSON, Plaintiff,
ROBERT W. FOX, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's original
complaint was dismissed for containing unrelated claims
against different defendants in violation of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). Plaintiff was granted leave to
amend but advised that, if he chooses to amend, he 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). Plaintiff's first
amended complaint is now before the court for screening.
forma pauperis statute provides, “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).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
times relevant to this action, plaintiff was a state inmate
housed at California Medical Facility (“CMF”) in
Vacaville, California. He names as defendants CMF Warden
Robert Fox; the former CMF Warden Duffy; Associate Wardens
and Chief Deputy Wardens at CMF Hurley, Thumser, Kaplin, and
Cueva; Captain Codero; Correctional Officers Olson, Martinez,
Barclay, Carpe, Richardson, Warren, Shaw, Thomas, Blueford,
Jenkins, Tennant, Brown, and Walker; Supervising Cooks
Garcia, McMasters, Dang, and Terrell; Psychologist
Valassopous; and Psychiatrist Kaw.
his original pleading, plaintiff's first amended
complaint is long, rambling, and difficult to decipher. As
best as the court can determine, plaintiff asserts a number
of unrelated claims spanning a two-year period. Some of these
claims include (1) a violation of his equal protection rights
based on the interval between inmates' release from their
cells for toilet use and access to institutional programs;
(2) a conditions of confinement claim based on the use of
cage showers and the existence of mold in those showers; (3)
limitations on yard access activities; (4) retaliation for
filing inmate grievances; (5) a conditions of confinement
claim based on the defendants' use of fans in the chow
halls during the winter months to rush them out; (6) sanitary
and hygiene violations by chow hall workers; and (7) the
dayroom causes “sensory deprivation” due to the
loud sounds, yelling, and a constantly-playing television.
Attached to plaintiff's first amended complaint are over
250 pages of exhibits.
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
has again asserted a number of unrelated claims against many
defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20(a)(2), which permits a plaintiff to sue multiple
defendants in the same action only if “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 there is a “question of law or
fact common to all defendants.” “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) (citing ...