Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02571/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02571-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN BROWNE

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; Deputy JONES; Deputy

ANTONIOTTI; Captain PECOT; Nurse

MODESTO; Nurse PITRAE; Nurse

CHRISTIAN; Nurse TERESA; Nurse

OSAUMB; Sergeant BLOOM; Deputy

BACANI; Deputy PANGASNAN; Senior

Deputy SANFORD; Captain DYER;

PATRICK #1; PATRICK #2; MELINDA

NORRELL; Nurse JESSICA; Nurse

ELLSA; Lieutenant GINNS; Dr. JOHN

TAYLOR; Nurse STAN; Sergeant

ADAMS; Lieutenant MIYAMOTTO;

Deputy CORTESE; Deputy JONES,

#1784; Deputy CALDERON; Sr

TREVINGIO, #1104; Deputy FOSTER;

and Deputy BUI,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2571 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order

the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff had filed it in three

installments. After a delay caused by plaintiff’s changing addresses and returned mail, he

has amended. The court will now screen the amended complaint to determine whether it

should be served. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

Case 4:05-cv-02571-PJH Document 32 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

1. Plaintiff alleges that on May 19, 2005, defendant Jones caused him to be

rehoused from an open dormitory to a filthy closed lockup cell, despite his having been

classified for open dorm housing because of an unspecified medical condition. He

complained to defendant Antoniotti to no avail, and Captain Pecot failed to answer his

grievance. This is insufficient to allege deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in

the absence of facts about the illness involved and the consequences he suffered from

Case 4:05-cv-02571-PJH Document 32 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

having been put in the cell. This claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

2. Plaintiff alleges that at what appears to be roughly the same time, defendant

Jones falsified a rule violation report in retaliation for his complaints about the stench in the

lockup cell. Plaintiff was given three days in lockup for the violation, whatever it may have

been. He also contends that Jones denied him medical attention, but does not provide any

details, and that Captain Root failed to answer his grievance about the three-day lockup. 

"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably

advance a legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th

Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted); accord Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)

(prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did

not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and

discipline).

Here plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to plead causation – that the false rule

violation report was written because of his complaints – nor has be alleged a chilling effect

and that the action did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. This claim will be

dismissed with leave to amend. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806 (prisoner bears burden of

pleading absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains). 

His claim that Jones failed to provide him medical care also is conclusory, in that he does

not say what medical care was need or what Jones actually did. These claims will be

dismissed with leave to amend.

3. Plaintiff has also included a laundry-list of additional complaints against many

other defendants. He is attempting to bring in one action many unrelated claims against

parties who are defendants on one claim but not on any others. A plaintiff may properly

join as many claims as he has against an opposing party. Fed. R.Civ.P. 18(a). However,

Case 4:05-cv-02571-PJH Document 32 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

parties may be joined as defendants in one action only “if there is asserted against them

jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question

of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 20(a). As a

practical matter, this means that claims involving different parties cannot be joined together

in one complaint if the facts giving rise to the claims were not related in some way – that is,

if there was not “similarity in the factual background of a claim.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130

F.3d 1348, (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are not sufficient to constitute similarity

when the specifics are different. Id. 

The claims and defendants as to each of the claims except those discussed in

sections one and two appear to be different, so joinder of these claims probably is not

proper. If plaintiff concedes that joinder is not proper he should omit all but claims one and

two from the amended complaint; he may include them if he contends joinder is proper, but

should allege facts sufficient to show the propriety of the joinder. 

CONCLUSION

1. The claims discussed in sections one and two above are DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND within thirty days of the date of this order. The amended complaint

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

If plaintiff concedes that joinder of the other claims was improper, he should omit

them from the amended complaint. If he does not concede that, he should take care to

allege facts sufficient to show that joinder is proper. 

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

Case 4:05-cv-02571-PJH Document 32 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\BROWNE571.DWL2.wpd 

Case 4:05-cv-02571-PJH Document 32 Filed 05/02/08 Page 5 of 5