(PC) Todd v. Sacramento County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREVOR TODD, No. 2:20-cv-1442 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, 19 and Fourteenth Amendments. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for 20 screening. (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s first 21 amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. 22 SCREENING 23 I. Legal Standards 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 27 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 28 //// 1 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 3 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 5 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 8 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of 9 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 11 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 12 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 13 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 14 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 15 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 16 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 17 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 18 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 19 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 20 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 21 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 22 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 23 or other proper proceeding for redress. 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 25 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 26 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 27 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 28 1 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform 2 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 3 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 5 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 6 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 7 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 8 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 9 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 10 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 11 II. Allegations in the Complaint 12 Plaintiff brings various claims against a long list of defendants including the Sacramento 13 County Sherriff’s Department (“SCSD”), Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (“RCCC”) SCSD 14 Lieutenant Bradley Rose, Inmate Health Services (“IHS”), Jail Psychiatric Services (“JPS”), 15 SCSD Sergeant Britton, SCSD Lieutenant B. Amos, SCSD Lieutenant Alex McCamy, the Inmate 16 Welfare Fund (“IWF”), Deputy Keyes, Deputy Canella, Deputy Iraton, Nurse Jane Doe, and Dr. 17 Janet Abarshire. (ECF No. 11 at 3.) 18 Plaintiff raises diverse claims involving that address numerous separate incidents. 19 Plaintiff claims include the following: 20 • SCSD and RCCC violated plaintiff’s rights by placing him in unsanitary conditions 21 related to risk of exposure to COVID-19. (Id. at 4.) 22 • Defendant Rose violated plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process by 23 “disregarding grievances and facility commander appeals,” which resulted in plaintiff 24 being denied access to reentry programming. (Id. at 5.) 25 • “By subjecting [plaintiff] to disciplinary segragation [sic] housing” for an extended 26 period, defendant Rose violated plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. 27 (Id.) 28 //// 1 • Defendant Rose, Canella, and Keyes violated plaintiff’s rights under the Americans 2 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by denying plaintiff access to re-entry programs. (Id. 3 at 6.) 4 • Defendant Iraton, IWF, and SCSD running a “for profit” inmate welfare fund violates 5 plaintiff’s right to due process and is cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 7.) 6 • SCSD and IHS were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s need for the assistance of a 7 licensed optometrist as well as a prescription for glasses in violation of plaintiff’s 8 Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. at 8.) 9 • JPS and IHS violated plaintiff’s rights by disclosing plaintiff’s medical information to 10 other staff and inmates. (Id. at 9.) 11 • Defendant Rose, defendant Britton, defendant Amos, and defendant McCamy failed to 12 reply to ADA compliance requests, violating plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. (Id. at 13 10.) 14 • Defendant Gaspar and defendant Britton violated plaintiff’s right to “fair access to 15 counsel and the courts” by throwing away or misdirecting plaintiff’s mail. (Id. at 11.) 16 Plaintiff may also intend to bring additional claims in his complaint. However, the list 17 above are the claims which can be readily identified within the complaint. 18 III. Unrelated Claims against Different Defendants Belong in Different Suits 19 The complaint contains numerous claims involving different defendants and facts. Many 20 of these claims also involve different issues of law. 21 Plaintiff is informed that he may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a 22 single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 23 2011) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits and complaints 24 violating that principle should be rejected). While multiple claims against a single party may be 25 alleged in a single complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be alleged in 26 separate complaints. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under 27 Rule 18(a), prisoner improperly brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims against twenty- 28 four defendants). 1 Plaintiff may only bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim(s) 2 arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or serious of transactions and occurrences, and (2) 3 there are common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. 4 of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). As a practical matter, this means that claims 5 involving different parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the facts giving rise to the 6 claims were not factually related in some way—that is, if there was not “similarity in the factual 7 background.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are 8 not sufficient to constitute similarity when the specifics are different. Id. The fact that some of 9 plaintiff’s claims are based on alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights under the ADA does not 10 necessarily make claims related for purposes of Rule 18(a). Id. at 1351. 11 The court cannot identify a common question of law or fact in plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff 12 raises issues that appear to be entirely unrelated. For example, plaintiff alleges that his rights 13 were violated by IHS’s failure to provide him with an optometrist (ECF No. 11 at 8), by the 14 denial of access to reentry programs by defendants Rose (Id. at 5), and by Defendant Gaspar and 15 defendant Briton denying plaintiff access to the courts (Id. at 7). The defendants in each of the 16 claims in this example are different.1 These claims also arise from a separate transactions or 17 occurrences. (See Id. at 5, 7, 8.) Further, there is not a common question of fact or law that 18 connects these claims. They originate from separate factual backgrounds and do not concern a 19 common question of law. 20 Given the above, the claims in the complaint cannot be brought in a single action. 21 Plaintiff’s claims involve different defendants, do not arise from the same transaction or 22 occurrence, and do not contain common questions of fact or law. As such, these claims must be 23 brought in separate complaints. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Desert Empire Bank, 623 F.2d at 1375. 24 If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint he should assert only claims arising from 25 common events and containing common questions of law or fact. See George, 507 F.3d at 607 26 (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the 27 1 Some of the claims raised in the complaint do involve the same defendant. (See, e.g., Id. at 5, 28 6.) However, the majority of plaintiff’s claims involve different defendants. 1 sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that 2 prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 three the 3 number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the 4 required fees.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Alternatively, plaintiff may select a single 5 defendant and bring as many claims as he has against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). 6 IV. Amending the Complaint 7 Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. In any amended 8 complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a 9 deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, the complaint must 10 allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. 11 Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s action and the claimed 13 deprivation. Id.; Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743. Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of 14 official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 15 Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 16 and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 17 to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 18 defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The 19 charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint so defendants have fair notice of 20 the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in 21 support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 23 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 24 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 25 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 26 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 27 Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 28 //// 1 he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 2 that causes the alleged deprivation). 3 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 4 R. Civ. P 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 6 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 7 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 8 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 9 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 11 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 12 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 13 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 14 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 15 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 16 reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 17 prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 18 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 19 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 20 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 21 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 11) is dismissed. 4 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended 5 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 7 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second 8 Amended Complaint.” 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner civil rights 10 complaint form. 11 4. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 12 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 13 || Dated: September 20, 2021 14 15 16 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DB:14 24 || DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/todd1442.scrn2 25 26 27 28