(PC) McClintock v. Valencia ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN SCOTT McCLINTOCK, No. 2:21-cv-0850-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. VALENCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a third amended complaint (ECF No. 21) which the court must now 19 screen.1 Like the prior complaint, plaintiff’s third amended complaint attempts to join unrelated 20 claims in a single action. 21 It is well settled that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against 22 separate defendants: 23 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 24 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as 25 1 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. 26 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 27 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 28 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 1 alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a 2 single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 3 4 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 5 In the first claim, plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for a civil rights lawsuit plaintiff was 6 litigating, Sergeant Valencia and Correctional Officer L. Cantu fabricated a written threat by 7 plaintiff “to murder the defendants.” ECF No. 21 at 3. Plaintiff claims that Lieutenant T. Cooper 8 also retaliated for the lawsuit by falsely claiming to have witnessed plaintiff’s threat. Id. at 5. 9 Because of these false allegations, plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation for 80 days 10 with a sign on his cell door that read “inmate threatened to murder staff.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff was 11 constantly threatened with harm, his medical needs were not met, and officers kicked on his cell 12 door every thirty minutes to disturb him. 13 In the second and seemingly unrelated claim, plaintiff alleges that defendants Lieutenant 14 Vega, Sergeant Coker, Lieutenant Charon, and Associate Warden Cantu were deliberately 15 indifferent to plaintiff’s safety by intentionally housing plaintiff with an incompatible inmate 16 known for predatory behavior upon plaintiff’s release from administrative segregation and re- 17 entry into the general population. 18 Plaintiff cannot proceed with these two claims in a single action, as they encompass 19 discrete events and defendants, rendering them ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. Plaintiff’s 20 complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. In an amended complaint, plaintiff must either 21 demonstrate that these claims can be properly joined in a single action or he must omit one of the 22 claims entirely. 23 Leave to Amend 24 In addition to the above, any amended complaint must contain a caption including the 25 names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). It must also be written or typed so that it so that it 26 is complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is 27 because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended 28 complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See 1 || Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes 2 | the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 3 || 55,57 (th Cir. 1967)). The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules 4 | of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being 5 || dismissed. See Local Rule 110. 6 Conclusion 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiffs third amended complaint (ECF No. 21) is DISMISSED with leave to amend 9 within 30 days of service of this order. 10 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 11 stated herein. 12 | DATED: May 24, 2022. 14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28