(PC) Lamon v. Allison ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, No. 2:18-cv-2218 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 19 On January 9, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. As to the 21 contents of the amended complaint, plaintiff was instructed he must comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of 22 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which basically requires that a complaint be “short and 23 plain.” Plaintiff was also informed that he may bring as many claims as he likes against a 24 particular defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But, claims brought against other defendants must 25 arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as a claim 26 against the first defendant. Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 27 Plaintiff has not complied with either directive. The complaint contains several pages of 28 vague and conclusory allegations and information otherwise not relevant to stating an actionable 1 | claim. Also, plaintiff names approximately 35 defendants and 10 “doe” defendants all of whom 2 | were allegedly “acting in concert” with one another without identifying any facts suggesting as 3 | much. Vague allegations concerning conspiracy do not satisfy court rules regarding joinder of 4 | claims. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 5 | Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 6 In the court’s January 9, 2019 order, plaintiff was also informed: 7 With respect to several of the defendants, including the Director of the CDCR and others in management, plaintiff fails to make any 8 allegations suggesting personal participation in any of the deprivations alleged. Liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case “arises only 9 upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “There is no respondeat 10 superior liability under section 1983.” Id. 11 Yet, in his amended complaint, plaintiff still makes allegations against several higher 12 | ranking CDCR officials without pointing to any facts suggesting they personally participated in 13 | anything alleged by plaintiff. 14 For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's amended complaint will be dismissed. The court 15 | will give plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. If plaintiff fails in any material respect to 16 | follow the directions given to him in the court’s January 9, 2019 order as to the contents of his 17 | pleadings, the court will recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to follow court rules 18 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. 21 2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to file a second amended complaint which 22 | complies with the terms of the court’s January 9, 2019 order. Plaintiff's failure in any material 23 || respect to follow the directions given to him in the court’s January 9, 2019 order with respect to 24 | the drafting of his second amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be 25 || dismissed. 26 | Dated: September 30, 2019 f af Is / a i Kk. Aas ee ee ne 27 CAROLYN K. DELANEY : ng | amor2}8.40) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE