(PC) Sanford v. Eaton ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT L. SANFORD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00792-JLT-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MERGE NEW 9 v. ISSUES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 EATON, et al., (ECF No. 31) 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Robert L. Sanford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 On March 29, 2021, the undersigned screened the first amended complaint, which named 16 the following defendants: (1) P. Eaton, Warden at Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”); (2) Ralph 17 M. Diaz, retired, Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (3) B. 18 Cates, Warden at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”); (4) C. Schuyler, Chief Deputy 19 Warden at CCI; (5) B. Sanders, Associate Warden at CCI; (6) S. Shiesha, CMO at CCI; and 20 (7) U. Baniga, CPS at CCI. (ECF No. 16.) The Court found that the first amended complaint 21 failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and raised claims for conduct at SCC unrelated to 22 claims for conduct at CCI, in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. Plaintiff 23 was granted leave to file a second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) 24 In response, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that named the following 25 defendants: (1) B. Cates, Warden at CCI; (2) C. Schuyler, Chief Deputy Warden at CCI, and 26 (3) Does 1–5. (ECF No. 19.) 27 On July 16, 2021, the Court screened the second amended complaint and issued findings 28 and recommendations that the federal claims in this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 1 failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted and the Court decline to 2 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law claims. (ECF No. 21.) On 3 January 19, 2022, the assigned District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations in part 4 and dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 5 27.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is currently due on or 6 before March 21, 2022. 7 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to merge new issues to amended 8 complaint regarding new case related factors, filed February 25, 2022. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff is 9 requesting to introduce new issues back into the record regarding Defendant P. Eaton, Warden at 10 SCC and P. Quinn, Associate Warden at SCC, because Plaintiff has been transferred back to 11 SCC. Plaintiff argues that the unsafe conditions at SCC causing COVID-19 outbreaks have 12 continued. (Id.) 13 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request to join claims to the complaint. As 14 such, the motion is denied as premature, as there is currently no operative complaint. As 15 discussed above, Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is due on or before March 21, 2022. 16 However, Plaintiff is reminded that, as discussed in the Court’s order screening the first 17 amended complaint, Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single 18 action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); 19 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Mackey v. Price, 2020 WL 7319420, at *3–4 20 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 843462 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21 5, 2021). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises 22 out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there 23 are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 24 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). The “same transaction” requirement refers to similarity in the factual 25 background of a claim. Id. at 1349. Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) 26 will the Court review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which 27 permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, and any claims and defendants named therein, must 2 also comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. Plaintiff’s third amended 3 complaint remains due on or before March 21, 2022. 4 Plaintiff is further reminded that his third amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 6 constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, 7 the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 8 level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 9 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 10 claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 11 “buckshot” complaints). 12 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 13 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s third amended 14 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 15 Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to incorporate by 16 reference. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to join claims to the complaint, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED as premature; 19 2. On or before March 21, 2022, Plaintiff must file a third amended complaint curing the 20 deficiencies identified by the Court’s January 19, 2022 order adopting in part findings and 21 recommendations, or file a notice of voluntary dismissal; and 22 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with 23 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: March 3, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28