Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06003/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06003-0/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 

 

KEVIN LEE MCCULLOM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPT., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-06003 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed documents which were construed 

as an attempt to open a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 1.) 

In response to a Clerk’s notice advising him that the complaint was not submitted on the 

proper form, (Docket No. 3), Plaintiff filed a complaint using the court’s form along with 

attachments. (Docket No. 5.) Before the Court had an opportunity to screen the 

complaint, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 4, 2019, titled “amended 

class action 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint [sic].” (Docket No. 8 at 1.) The Court finds that 

the amended complaint is the operative complaint in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(1). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a 

separate order. 

/// 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 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

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 

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). 

 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Class Action 

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s assertion that this is a “class 

action” under § 1983. (Docket No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff includes the names of several other 

plaintiffs who appear to be similarly situated prisoners. (Id. at 3.) The Court will construe 

this assertion as a request for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 

The prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of 

law and fact, (3) the representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class 

claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the 

class interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class 

representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of the class. See 

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Russell v. United 

States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (‘a litigant appearing in propria persona has no 

authority to represent anyone other than himself”). Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 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

and therefore cannot adequately represent the intended class. Accordingly, his request for 

class certification is DENIED. See, e.g., Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131 

(W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot 

adequately represent class). The other “plaintiffs” listed on the amended complaint shall 

be removed from this action. (Docket No. 8 at 1, 3.) If they desire to pursue any claims on 

their own, they must do so by each filing separate actions. 

C. Plaintiff’s Claims 

According to the first few pages of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is suing 

employees of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, the Sheriff of Contra Costa 

County, officers at the Santa Rita Jail Facility in Dublin, employees at the Napa State 

Hospital, and several other individuals located at different addresses. (Am. Compl. at 3, 

4.) Plaintiff’s allegations include the following: (1) claims of false arrest, false 

imprisonment, issuance of an improper arrest warrant, and malicious prosecution against 

the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, Santa Rita Jail officers, and the Oakland Police 

Department from whom Plaintiff seeks damages, (id. at 5); (2) inadequate medical care for 

HIV at the Santa Rita Jail, (id. at 6, 7); and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel from his 

public defender, (id. at 7). With respect to the medical claim and the claim involving 

counsel, Plaintiff wants “Federal monitors” to be placed inside County offices, including 

the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and in superior court buildings throughout 

Alameda County. (Id. at 6, 7.) 

The amended complaint is problematic for several reasons. First of all, the 

amended complaint contains different claims against different defendants which do not 

appear to be related. “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). Accordingly, “multiple claims against a single 

party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim 

B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 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

claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort 

of “morass” that a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to ensure that 

prisoners pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the 

number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of 

required fees.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

Here, it is clear the various claims raised against different defendants throughout 

Alameda County and Contra Costa County are not all related to each other and do not all 

arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Specifically, the claims attacking the lawfulness of his conviction are 

not related to the claims regarding conditions of confinement, i.e., his medical treatment. 

“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). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the unrelated claims against unrelated Defendants are 

improperly joined in this single action. In the interest of justice, Plaintiff shall be granted 

leave to file another amended complaint containing only related claims against the 

appropriate Defendants. 

Secondly, Plaintiff seeks damages based on allegedly unlawful criminal 

proceedings against him in Alameda County. If an action for damages is based on an 

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, 

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 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

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas 

corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing 

that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 

In summary, Plaintiff may only pursue claims for damages based on 

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment in this action if he can show that the unlawful 

conviction has been invalidated and therefore not barred by Heck. Unless he can do so, the 

only claims he can pursue in this action are the claims regarding his medical treatment at 

Santa Rita County Jail. However, if he can show that the unlawful conviction has been 

invalidated, then he must choose to pursue in this action either the claims related to that 

conviction or the claims regarding his medical treatment. Plaintiff may pursue any claims 

he chooses to forego in this action, that are not Heck-barred, by filing them in a separate 

action and paying the related filing fees. 

Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for “Federal monitors” is not the type of relief that is 

available through a § 1983 action. Available remedies include damages, see Borunda v. 

Richmond, 885 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988), injunctive relief, 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3626(a)(1)(A), 3626(a)(2), and declaratory relief, see Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood 

Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). 

 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for class certification is DENIED. This matter shall 

proceed with Mr. McCullom as the sole plaintiff in this action. All other individuals 

named as plaintiffs, (Docket No. 8 at 1, 3), shall be terminated from this action. 

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

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

amended complaint that complies with Rules 18(a) and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 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

Procedure. The second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order, Case No. C 19-06003 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer 

all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 

The second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, 

which are 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 second amended 

complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in the second 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 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\HRL\CR.19\06003McCullom_dwlta 

Case 5:19-cv-06003-BLF Document 9 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 6