Solorio v. Ducart ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ADRIAN SOLORIO, 4 Case No. 18-cv-07708-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 5 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. REOPEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 6 REFILING ALONG WITH PROPOSED C.E. DUCART, et al., FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 7 ONLY ADDRESSING CLAIM 2 Defendants. 8 9 This is a closed civil rights case. Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Alter or 10 Amend Judgment,” which will be construed as a motion to reopen, as further explained below. 11 Dkt. 1. 12 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Calipatria State Prison, had filed this pro se 13 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison, 14 where he was previously incarcerated from 2016 to 2017. Even after being granted two previous 15 opportunities to amend his claims, see Dkts. 13, 18, Plaintiff had filed a second amended 16 complaint (“SAC”) that still raised multiple claims against around twenty defendants, all 17 employees of PBSP, see Dkt. 19. While Plaintiff presented his seven claims in the SAC in a more 18 orderly fashion, he still did not clearly set out information regarding why his claims and 19 Defendants are properly joined. As the Court previously notified Plaintiff, Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure Rule 20 provides, 21 All persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right 22 to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common 23 to all defendants will arise in the action. 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (emphasis added). Further, Rule 21 provides that where parties are 25 misjoined, they may be “dropped or added by order of the court . . . on such terms as are just.” 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). Rule 20(a) requires 27 that a plaintiff cannot assert unrelated claims against different defendants. 1 directed Plaintiff that in his SAC, he may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the same 2 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (b) present questions of law or 3 fact common to all defendants named therein. Dkt. 18 at 3. He was also warned that claims that 4 do not satisfy Rule 20(a) must be alleged in separate complaints filed in separate actions. Id. 5 Thereafter, as mentioned, Plaintiff filed a SAC raising multiple claims against around 6 twenty defendants. See Dkt. 19. 7 In an Order dated July 24, 2020, the Court noted that Plaintiff “ha[d] been warned before, 8 such claims run afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.” Dkt. 20 at 4. The Court added that 9 “[n]owhere d[id] Plaintiff attempt to link these disparate events, and thus he d[id] not justify the 10 inclusion of these disparate claims in one action.” Id. (brackets added). Thus, the Court reviewed 11 each claim, beginning with Claim 1, the earliest in time in May 2016. Id. The Court dismissed 12 Claim 1, which involved a random and unauthorized deprivation of property, for failure to state a 13 cognizable claim for relief. Id. Because the Court did not find it cognizable under section 1983, 14 Claim 1’s dismissal was without leave to amend. Id. The Court then turned to Claim 2 and also 15 dismissed it for failure to state a claim for relief. Id. However, Plaintiff was given leave to amend 16 only as to Claim 2, which related to alleged deprivation of legal materials on October 4, 2016. Id. 17 at 4-5. The Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations were “insufficient to show actual injury as 18 Plaintiff ha[d] failed to state facts showing how specific individuals acted to deprive him of legal 19 material[s] which prevented him from meeting a court deadline.” Id. at 4. All remaining claims in 20 the SAC were dismissed “without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing them in separate actions, either in 21 state or federal court.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff was specifically directed to file a third amended 22 complaint (“TAC”) “correcting the aforementioned deficiencies as to only Claim 2 . . . .” Id. at 6 23 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff was reminded repeatedly in the Court’s Order that his TAC “must 24 be limited to a discussion of Claim 2 alone.” Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff was warned that 25 “[i]f he realleges any other claims, they will be summarily dismissed.” Id. (emphasis in 26 original). 27 On August 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed two documents labeled, “Third Amended Complain[t].” 1 In an Order dated January 12, 2021, the Court reviewed both TACs, and found that in 2 neither TAC did Plaintiff amend Claim 2, as he was specifically directed to do so in the July 24, 3 2020 Order. See id. Instead, Plaintiff raised two new claims related to incidents on November 4, 4 2016 (medical claims) and January 3, 2017 (denial of access to religion claims). See id. 5 Therefore, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to respond to the Court’s 6 July 24, 2020 Order, and for failure to prosecute, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court added that 7 because the dismissal was without prejudice, Plaintiff may move to reopen the action. It further 8 instructed Plaintiff that “[a]ny such motion must contain a fourth amended complaint addressing 9 the deficiencies only as to Claim 2 as described in the Court’s July 24, 2020 Order.” 10 As mentioned above, Plaintiff has since filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,” in 11 which he states that his “failure to comply [with the Court’s July 24, 2020 Order] was [due] to this 12 pandemic and . . . the denial of legal cop[ies] requested before [the] court deadline was prejudicial 13 to [P]laintiff . . . .” Dkt. 25 at 2. Because the Court’s January 12, 2021 Order indicated that the 14 dismissal was without prejudice to Plaintiff moving to reopen this action, see Dkt. 23 at 3, 15 Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion to reopen the action. The Court notes that Plaintiff did 16 not attach his proposed fourth amended complaint, as directed in its January 12, 2021 Order. 17 Therefore, at this time, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen is DENIED without prejudice to refiling and 18 along with his renewed motion to reopen Plaintiff must attach a proposed fourth amended 19 complaint addressing the deficiencies only as to Claim 2 as described in the Court’s July 24, 2020 20 Order. Dkt. 25. 21 The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the July 24, 2020 Order along with his 22 copy of this Order. 23 This action shall remain closed unless Plaintiff files both the renewed motion to reopen 24 along with his proposed fourth amended complaint. 25 This Order terminates Docket No. 25. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: September 17, 2021 ______________________________________ JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS