United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. The court, on
screening, determined that plaintiff's initial complaint
failed to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has
filed an amended complaint which the court is also obligated
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
amended complaint contains several unrelated claims against
more than one defendant.
he alleges that, while incarcerated at Salinas Valley State
Prison (‘SVSP'), an individual identified only as
‘John Doe' “used inmates to sexual[ly]
assault to (sic) Plaintiff.” ECF No. 11 at 7. Plaintiff
does not describe either the assaults or the means by which
defendant Doe effected them. He states only that they
occurred at the end of 2016 and during the first three months
of 2017. Id. In June of 2017, plaintiff was
transferred to Mule Creek State Prison (‘MCSP').
plaintiff claims that, on June 27, 2017, defendant Parks and
several other unidentified officers each conducted a body
search of plaintiff - ostensibly to determine whether he had
hidden contraband. Id. at 8. Plaintiff alleges that
only one of these searches was necessary and the others were
intended only as a means of harassment. Id.
plaintiff alleges that, on August 10, 2017, defendant Orozco
stopped him as he was exiting the dining room after
breakfast. Id. She ordered him to submit to a body
search, during which she allegedly fondled his left nipple
twice. Id. at 8-9.
court recognizes that plaintiff has attempted to assert
tenuous links between these incidents insofar as he appears
to allege that defendant Doe orchestrated them in retaliation
for submitted grievances. Id. at 7-8. The amended
complaint fails, however, to offer any specific allegations
detailing Doe's involvement. What remains, then, are
three separate and unrelated claims. Whether Doe
“used” other inmates to assault plaintiff while
he was incarcerated in SVSP is a completely separate factual
question from whether defendant Park used body searches to
harass him at MCSP. The same is obviously true of the third
claim, which occurred several months after the first two.
Litigating these claims together in a single case presents
obvious procedural and logistical difficulties. Moreover,
from a purely administrative standpoint, a litigant is not
allowed to litigate multiple unrelated claims and be
subjected to a single filing fee. Finally, the court notes
that plaintiff was warned that he could not bring multiple,
unrelated claims against more than one defendant. ECF No. 8