United States District Court, N.D. California
SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO
GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Standard of Review
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).
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).