United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING LEAVE
TO FILE A BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTY PAGES RE: DKT. NO.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, filed this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint
(Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which 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 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[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, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because it
does not comply with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 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.
20(a)(2). The 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).
complaint alleges unrelated claims against different sets of
defendants, and should therefore be raised in separate suits.
George, 507 F.3d at 607 (“Unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different
Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2018, when he was arrested
by defendant Redwood City Police Officer Barajas, Defendant
Barajas denied his request to bring his insulin and other
medications to jail pursuant to policies promulgated by
defendants Redwood City and Redwood City Policy Department.
He also alleges that defendant Redwood City Police Officer
Lee Junsun failed to intervene when Defendant Barajas denied
him his needed medication, and that defendant Redwood City
Police Department Chief Mulholland did not discipline
Defendant Barajas or respond to Plaintiff's complaints
regarding Defendant Barajas.
Plaintiff alleges that, from April to July 2018, while
incarcerated by San Mateo County, he was denied adequate
medical care because he was not provided with diabetic shoes,
eyeglasses, an appointment with an optometrist, and treatment
for his glaucoma. He alleges that the following individuals,
agencies, or municipalities are responsible for the denial of
medical care: San Mateo County, San Mateo County's
Sheriff's Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos
Bolanos; Correctional Health Services; Correctional Health
Services Director Carlos Morales; Maguire Correctional
Facility Captain Fitzpatrick; San Mateo Public Health
Department; and San Mateo Public Health Department Kimberlee
Plaintiff alleges that in February 17, 2016, he fell and
injured his right shoulder, and that Dr. Lindquist provided
inadequate medical treatment when he failed to ...