United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he has filed an amended
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
screening plaintiff's original complaint, the court
identified three unrelated claims that plaintiff had
improperly joined in a single complaint. ECF No. 9 at 3-4.
Specifically, plaintiff had alleged (1) that defendant Susan
Larson - a registered nurse - punctured plaintiff's
esophagus while removing tubing that had been used in
surgery, (2) that defendant O'Rielly, who acted as
plaintiff's transportation officer, drove recklessly on
the trip back to California State Prison - Sacramento
(CSP-SAC), and (3) that his post-surgery medical care at
CSP-SAC was deliberately indifferent. Id. at 3. In
dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, the court
informed plaintiff as follows:
These three claims, though all related to plaintiff's
surgery, involve different sets of operative facts. Whether
defendant O'Rielly drove recklessly or abandoned
plaintiff upon arrival at CSP-SAC is, for instance, a
separate factual question from whether defendant Larson acted
with deliberate indifference in the immediate aftermath of
plaintiff's surgery. Unrelated claims against different
defendants, however, should be pursued in separate lawsuits.
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007). Plaintiff may address this deficiency in his amended
complaint, if he elects to file one.
Id. at 4.
plaintiff's amended complaint, now before the court for
screening (ECF No. 12), he chose not to address this
deficiency. As before, plaintiff realleges the same three
unrelated claims without any new allegations showing that
they satisfy the rules of joinder and can properly be joined
together in a single lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
18(a), 20(a)(2). The amended complaint thus fails to cure the
defects identified by the court, and despite an opportunity
to amend, plaintiff appears to be unable to comply with the
court's screening order. Consequently, the court declines
to offer him further opportunity to amend. See McGlinchy
v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809-10 (9th Cir.
1988) (“Repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed is another valid reason for a
district court to deny a party leave to amend.”).
it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a
United States District Judge to this action.
it is RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 21) be
dismissed for failure to comply with the court's order,
and the Clerk be directed to close the case.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right
to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v.
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
 “The controlling principle
appears in Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a
claim . . . may join,  as independent or as alternate
claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an
opposing party.' 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, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple
claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to
ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the
Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of
frivolous suits or ...