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.

Solorio v. Ducart

United States District Court, N.D. California

January 13, 2020

ADRIAN SOLORIO, Plaintiff,
v.
C.E. DUCART, et al., Defendants.

          SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights during his previous incarceration at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff's twenty-four-page complaint raised multiple allegations with respect to events that occurred at PBSP sometime between 2016 to 2017. See Id. On July 12, 2019, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend with various instructions to correct certain deficiencies, including that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that complies with the joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). The Court provided Plaintiff with the rules regarding joinder of Defendants as well as other pleading requirements.

         Plaintiff has since filed his Amended Complaint (dkt. 15), which the Court now reviews under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will again dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that complies with the necessary pleading requirements.

         II. DISCUSSION

         In its July 12, 2019 Order, the Court noted that the allegations in the complaint covered a span of time of almost one year, specifically from May 2016 through March 2017, during which period Plaintiff was incarcerated at PBSP, and asserted multiple claims, stating as follows:

When the allegations in the complaint concerning his confinement at PBSP are liberally construed, Plaintiff seems to state the following claims for relief: (1) unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff's property in May 2016; (2) denial of legal materials on October 4, 2016 and failure to train properly the prison librarian; (3) denial of medical care on November 4, 2016 and failure to train properly medical personnel; (4) discrimination using “anti-Muslim slurs” and denial of Halal meals on January 3, 2017, as well as failure to train properly correctional officers not to discriminate based on religion; (5) retaliation (based on Plaintiff filing grievances) by spreading “false rumors” to other prisoners causing Plaintiff to be in danger while housed in general population on February 20, 2017, and failure to train properly correctional officers to prevent retaliation; (6) retaliation (again based on Plaintiff filing grievances) and “mail censorship” on March 9, 2017; and (7) failing to refund Plaintiff's money for “unfair business practice[s]” by the prison canteen after the loss of items from his order on March 12, 2017. Plaintiff names the aforementioned twenty defendants in connection with the noted claims.

Dkt. 13 at 3.

         In his twenty-four-page Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has once again raised unrelated claims and Defendants. The claims in the Amended Complaint are wide-ranging and include similar alleged violations of multiple constitutional rights as the original complaint (albeit presented in a different order) against eighteen Defendants, including: (1) discrimination relating to the denial of Halal meals on January 3, 2017; (2) retaliation (based on Plaintiff filing grievances) by spreading “false rumors” on February 20, 2017; (3) retaliation (again based on Plaintiff filing grievances) and “mail censorship”; (4) denial of legal materials on October 4, 2016 and failure to train properly the prison librarian; (5) denial of medical care on November 4, 2016 and failure to train properly medical personnel; (6) failing to refund Plaintiff's money for “unfair business practices” by the prison canteen after the loss of items from his order on March 12, 2017; and (7) unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff's property in May 2016. Dkt. 15 at 3-5.

         Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's instructions to file only those claims against Defendants that are properly joined. Therefore, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint cannot proceed. Because the Court cannot determine on which of the improperly joined claims Plaintiff wishes to proceed, the Court now dismisses the Amended Complaint with leave to amend, as set forth below.

         A. Standard of Review

         Federal 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

         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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         B. ...


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.