Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goldstein v. Barajas

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 24, 2019

DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGINA BARAJAS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTY PAGES RE: DKT. NO. 2

          HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, 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.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A 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).

         Federal 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.

         To 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, 48 (1988).

         B. Complaint

         The 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).

         The 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 suits.”).

         First, 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.

         Second, 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 Kamura.

         Third, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.