United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) inmate proceeding without counsel in an
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed this
action on November 6, 2018. ECF No. 1. On April 24, 2019, the
court determined that plaintiff's complaint impermissibly
joined multiple, unrelated claims against more than one
defendant. ECF No. 10 at 2-3. Plaintiff was given leave to
amend to address this deficiency in his complaint.
Id. at 4.
court must screen the amended complaint. Having done so,
it is recommended that plaintiff's claims be dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to compel the
return of his legal materials is also denied.
to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any
time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or
if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against an immune defendant.
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or
portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554,
562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the
complaint's allegations are true.” Id.
(citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on
the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading
sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S.
738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395
U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the
pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
court was unequivocal in its previous screening order:
“plaintiff's initial complaint, which was brought
against multiple defendants, contained various unrelated
claims. The law is clear that “[u]nrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits . . .
.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007). And plaintiff's claims in the initial
complaint were not sufficiently related to each other. To
reiterate, he alleged at least five unrelated claims in that
initial filing: (1) that defendant Rios used excessive force
against him in December of 2015; (2) that after the excessive
force incident with Rios, medical staff at High Desert State
Prison failed to offer plaintiff adequate medical care; (3)
that plaintiff's due process rights were violated after
he was charged with a rules violation report in connection
with the Rios excessive force incident; (4) that plaintiff
was served poisoned meals as a form of unauthorized
punishment by defendants Martell, Rodriguez, McNaught, and
Courtney; and (5) that plaintiff was wrongfully placed on
administrative appeal restriction for failing to comply with
the procedural requirements of the prison grievance system.
The second amended complaint has not corrected this issue of
misjoinder; it still contains multiple unrelated claims.
plaintiff again alleges that, on December 19, 2015, defendant
Rios punched him in the face several times and slammed him to
the ground. ECF No. 27 at 4. He also claims that defendant
Gambert (the captain of the facility where the excessive
force occurred), Warden Adams, and CDCR Secretary Kernan were
aware of a pattern of misconduct. Id.
plaintiff claims that, on December 23, 2015, defendant
Christensen - a nurse practitioner - failed to provide
plaintiff with adequate medical care. Id. at 5.
Specifically, plaintiff claims that Christensen misstated his
medical complaints and then, despite evidence that plaintiff
was in pain and spitting up blood, declined to order x-rays
on his ribs. Id. He argues that defendants Adams and
Foss - the warden and deputy warden, respectively - were
aware of the inadequacies in his medical treatment.
plaintiff alleges that he was falsely charged with a rules
violation report after the Rios excessive force incident.
Id. at 6. He claims that his due process rights were
violated in that: (1) he was denied a disciplinary hearing;
(2) he was denied the ability to call witnesses; and (3) he
was not otherwise allowed to present a defense. Id.
It is unclear which defendants were involved in this alleged
violation of his rights.
plaintiff alleges that his ability to litigate a state habeas
petition was frustrated by his inability to access legal mail
and the unit law library. Id. Plaintiff provides no
details regarding the denial of access, nor does he specify
how his state habeas litigation was hampered. He ...