Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00252-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATHAN MAULDING,1

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-252-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP, SEVERING 

PLAINTIFFS, DENYING MISCELLANEOUS 

MOTIONS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Pending before the court is plaintiff Nathan Maulding’s civil rights complaint, purportedly 

brought along with four other plaintiffs, all of whom are or were incarcerated at the Herlong 

Federal Correctional Institution when this action was commenced. Before filing a complaint, 

Maulding and his purported co-plaintiffs filed numerous motions with the court. Plaintiff 

Maulding has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. Action Construed as Individual Suit Brought by Sole Plaintiff, Nathan Maulding 

Plaintiff Maulding lists four other inmates as plaintiffs on his complaint. ECF No. 31. 

Those four additional inmates may not be joined in this action, and instead, must proceed with 

their own separate lawsuits. Generally, “Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

 1

 The Clerk of the Court shall update the case caption to reflect that Maulding is now the 

sole plaintiff in this action. 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 7
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

permits the joinder of plaintiffs in one action if: (1) the plaintiffs assert any right to relief arising 

out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there are 

common questions of law or fact. If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, a court, in its 

discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by 

the severance.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations 

omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. 

On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court 

may also sever any claim against a party.”). 

However, actions brought by multiple pro se prisoners present unique problems not 

confronted in ordinary civil litigation. For example, transfer of one or more plaintiffs to different 

institutions or release on parole, as well as the challenges to communication among plaintiffs 

presented by confinement, may cause delay and confusion. In addition, the interplay of the filing 

fee provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) suggests that prisoners may 

not bring multi-plaintiff actions, but rather must each proceed separately. 

To proceed with a civil action, each plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a) or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submit the affidavit and trust 

account statement required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The PLRA expressly requires that a prisoner, 

where proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the full amount of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

This provision reflected Congress’s intent to reduce the volume of frivolous prisoner litigation in 

the federal courts. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1196-97 (11th Cir. 2001); 141 Cong. Rec. 

S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl) (“Section 2 will require prisoners to 

pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the federal judicial system by paying a 

small filing fee on commencement of lawsuits. In doing so, the provision will deter frivolous 

inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case 

and not just file reflexively.”); see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627-28 (9th Cir. 2002). In 

order not to undermine the PLRA’s deterrent purpose, courts have agreed that prisoner-plaintiffs 

who proceed together in one action must each pay the full filing fee. E.g., Boriboune v. Berge, 

391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2004); Hubbard, 262 F.3d at 1197-98. However, 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 7
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

§ 1915(b)(3) provides that “in no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the amount of fees 

permitted by statute for the commencement of a civil action.” If multiple prisoners were 

permitted to proceed with a joint action, and each paid the full filing fee in accordance with 

§ 1915(b)(1) and the apparent intent of Congress, the amount of fees collected would exceed the 

amount permitted by statute for commencement of the action, in violation of § 1915(b)(3). 

To avoid the problems related to case-management and filing fees, permissive joinder of 

the other four inmates as plaintiffs in this action is denied. With the exception of plaintiff Nathan 

Maulding, all other plaintiffs are dropped from this action, but they may proceed with their claims 

in a new action. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, 467 F.3d 842, 846 (3d Cir. 2006) (claims that are 

severed rather than dismissed may continue in a separate suit to avoid statute of limitations barrier 

that might arise in event of dismissal).

II. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff Nathan Maulding has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and 

(2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to 

collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

III. Screening Order 

 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. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

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 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and concludes that it 

must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff complains generally of racial discrimination and segregation. As relief, he 

seeks 25.5 million dollars in damages and to have his sentence vacated. Although he does not 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 7
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

identify any claims for relief, it appears that he is attempting to state a claim for a violation of his 

right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, plaintiff’s allegations are 

simply too vague and conclusory to state a claim for relief. He does not allege any facts showing 

that any particular defendant intentionally discriminated against him because of his race. He also 

fails to plead specific facts showing how any alleged discrimination has personally caused him 

harm. If plaintiff Maulding wishes to proceed with this action as an individual suit, he must file 

an amended complaint that links specific acts or omissions by specific defendants to a deprivation 

of his rights only. 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Bivens

established that “compensable injury to a constitutionally protected interest [by federal officials 

alleged to have acted under color of federal law] could be vindicated by a suit for damages 

invoking the general federal question jurisdiction of the federal courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331].” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). “Actions under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 and 

those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a 

federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). 

“To state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must 

show that he was treated in a manner inconsistent with others similarly situated, and that the 

defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon 

membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). 

An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional 

conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Because 

respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff must plead that each 

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the 

Constitution.” Id. 

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of 

confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Where success in a section 1983 action would 

implicitly question the validity of confinement or its duration, the plaintiff must first show that 

the underlying conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff can allege a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. Any amended complaint 

must cure the deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following requirements. 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 7
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 

6

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

IV. Miscellaneous Motions

Plaintiff Maulding commenced this action with a motion for injunctive relief and a motion 

to compel. ECF Nos. 1, 2. He also filed a motion for default judgment. ECF No. 22. As 

discussed above, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. As there is no 

operative complaint, plaintiff has no likelihood of success on the merits of any claim, and there 

are no defendants against whom this court could enter an order. If plaintiff files an amended 

complaint that states a cognizable claim, the court will order the United States Marshal to serve 

the amended complaint upon the named defendant(s). See Zepeda v. United States Immigration 

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). Accordingly, the court will 

deny plaintiff’s motions as premature.

There are also several motions pending that were neither filed nor signed by plaintiff 

Maulding. ECF Nos. 3, 20, 28, 30. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that 

“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record 

in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11(a). In addition, Local Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing himself 

without an attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not 

delegate that duty to any other individual. E.D. Cal, L.R. 183(a). The pending motions that are 

not signed by plaintiff will therefore be disregarded. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

V. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Permissive joinder of the named plaintiffs in this action is denied. Excepting Nathan 

Maulding, all claims by all other plaintiffs – Steven Avery, Steven Ingrahm, Darin Martin and 

Nganatatafu Aholelei– are dismissed from this action without prejudice to proceeding with their 

claims in a new action. 

2. Plaintiff Maulding’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 32) is granted. 

3. Plaintiff Maulding shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be 

collected in accordance with the notice to the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed concurrently 

herewith. 

4. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to 

state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will 

proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

5. Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 22) are denied as premature. 

6. The Clerk of the Court shall note on the docket that the filings at ECF Nos. 3, 20, 28, 

and 30 are disregarded. 

Dated: August 26, 2015. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00252-MCE-EFB Document 34 Filed 08/26/15 Page 7 of 7