Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03429/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03429-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHONDOLYN ROCHELLE BLEVINS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHARLESTON C. IWUAGWU, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-03429 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

 

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action against 

officials at Federal Correctional Institute in Dublin (“FCI”), where she was formerly 

incarcerated. After an initial screening, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend for Plaintiff to attempt to correct several deficiencies. (Docket No. 12.) Plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 13, hereinafter “Am. Compl.”) 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); 

Jackson v. Carey, 535 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The Court notes that although Plaintiff used a court form complaint for a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action, she is a federal prisoner, (Am. Compl. at 1), and this action challenges the 

actions of federal employees at FCI-Dublin and not actions under color of state law. See 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392–97 (1971) 

(recognizing a private right of action for damages for constitutional violations by federal 

employees or their agents). Accordingly, the Court will construe this complaint as a 

Bivens action, and not as a §1983 action, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s liberal 

construction requirements. See Jackson, 353 F.3d at 757; see also Paige v. Geo Group, 

Oakland Center, No. 17-cv-06116-HSG (PR), slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018) 

(construing section 1983 action as a Bivens claim in complaint by pro se prisoner); Lloyd v. 

Corrections Corp. of America, 855 F. Supp. 221, 222 (W.D. Tenn. 1994) (same). 

To state a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant violated a federal 

constitutional right while acting under color of federal law. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 

774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

Except for the replacement of a state actor by a federal actor, actions under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 and Bivens are identical. Id.; see also Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 609 (1999) 

(qualified immunity analysis same under Bivens and § 1983). Accordingly, when 

reviewing a Bivens action for which there is no case on point, § 1983 cases may be applied 

by analogy. See, e.g., Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying 

§ 1983 cases to analysis of Bivens claim that officers used excessive force under Fourth 

Amendment, and of qualified immunity defense to same claim). 

/// 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint has the same deficiency as the original complaint in 

that it contains different claims against different Defendants and is therefore subject to 

dismissal for failure to comply with Rules 18(a) and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. “A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, a 

suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to 

pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions – should be rejected 

if filed by a prisoner.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that, in 

prisoner complaint seeking to join 24 defendants and approximately 50 distinct claims, 

prisoner made no effort to show that 24 defendants he named had participated in the same 

transaction or series of transactions or that a question of fact is common to all defendants). 

In filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised that she may only include claims that 

comply with both Rules 18(a) and 20(a). The claims include the following: 

 Plaintiff claims that on March 15, 2017, she attempted to submit mail for a 

federal action in Florida and began to experience difficulties in doing so. (Am. 

Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Asst. Warden LeMasters refused 

to provide assistance in this regard. (Id.; id., Attach. at 2.) 

 Plaintiff claims that she filed a prison grievance to Defendant Counselor 

Villigran, but that the grievance “has not been accepted into the administrative 

remedy process.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that thereafter, she began to experience 

trouble with receiving her mail. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff claims that she attempted to purchase 10 stamps, and was repeatedly 

told by the commissary officer, Defendant Avin, that the prison only sold books 

of stamps in increments of 20. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff claims Defendants LeMasters, Captain Castillo, and Lt. Putman refused 

to take action and intervene against the harassment she experienced from inmate 

Jacqueline Gentile. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that their inaction was in retaliation 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

for her filing prison grievances. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff claims that on May 29, 2017, after a verbal disagreement in the laundry 

room, inmate Jacqueline Gentile attacked her, causing Plaintiff to suffer a 

contusion o the left side of her face. (Id.) She was apparently placed in the 

SHU pending investigation, and the related incident report was later expunged 

based on due process violations. (Id. at 3-4.) 

 Plaintiff claims that while in the SHU, she was denied grievance forms by 

Defendants Shaffey and the unnamed Unit Manager, to complain that she was 

unable to purchase stamps in increments of 10 rather than 20. (Id. at 4.) 

 Plaintiff claims that being subjected to eating cold cereal in the SHU amounts to 

cruel and unusual punishment, when inmates in general population can eat hot 

oatmeal or grits. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff claims that FCI-Dublin “supervisory officials” are enforcing an 

unconstitutional policy and procedure in allowing inmates who commit 

numerous or repeated assaults to return to general population rather than being 

transferred after a second such incident. (Id. at 5.) 

 Plaintiff claims that unidentified staff have “falsely alleged in my medical 

records that I had refused [hysterectomy] surgery,” and that the refusal of 

Dublin medical employees to provide her with medical treatment has caused her 

fibroids to increase in size, making her ineligible for a “regular hysterectomy.” 

(Id.) She is now required to take injections to shrink the fibroids over a sixmonth period. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff claims that on or about September 6, 2018, while working overtime, 

Defendant Miller refused to issue her a tray when she “refused to talk to him and 

greet [him] in the manner he wanted to be greeted in.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims 

Defendant Miller is the “staff representative who I believe violated my rights 

during the disciplinary process.” (Id.) 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 Plaintiff claims her confinement in the SHU presents a significant and atypical 

hardship. (Id.) 

Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “A party asserting a 

claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or 

alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

18(a). Rule 20(a) provides that parties may be joined as defendants in one action only “if 

any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with 

respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Here, due to the vagueness of many of the allegations, it is unclear which claims 

can be joined under Rule 18(a) against the same opposing party or parties. Furthermore, it 

cannot be said that all the claims presented can be joined under Rule 20(a) because they 

clearly do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences, and there is no question of law or fact common to all the defendants. 

Accordingly, the amended complaint is clearly in violation of Rule 18(a) and Rule 20(a). 

However, in the interest of justice, Plaintiff shall be afforded another opportunity to file a 

second amended complaint to include only the claims that comply with both Rules 18(a) 

and 20(a). All other claims she wishes to pursue should be filed as separate actions that 

also comply with Rules 18(a) and 20(a). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 

twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a second amended 

complaint using the court’s form complaint to state only claims that comply with both 

Rules 18(a) and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The second amended 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 

18-03429 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first 

page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form complaint in order for the action 

to proceed. 

 The second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, 

the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 

F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in the amended 

complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in the amended complaint are no 

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided will 

result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to 

Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this 

order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03429Blevins_dwlta2 

Case 5:18-cv-03429-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 6 of 6