Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04179-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF GREGORY

AHERN, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-4179 CW (PR)

SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Joseph Flowers, who is currently incarcerated in

the Marin County Jail, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order of dismissal with

leave to amend. The Court summarized Plaintiff's claims as

follows:

Plaintiff alleges multiple constitutional violations,

which he experienced while he was incarcerated at Santa

Rita County Jail and North County Jail in 2007. 

(Compl. at 3-18.) He claims he was given "spoiled and

unhealthy" meals, subjected to "solitary confinement as

a result of his refusal to cease and desist from

practicing law," subjected to mail tampering, "beaten

near death," subjected to deliberate indifference to

his serious medical needs," "sexually assaulted and

discriminated against upon at least fourteen different

occasions," housed in administrative segregation for

"the duration of [his] incarceration for unfound

reasons," and placed in a cell with "mainline inmates,"

who "ransacked" the cell and "abused" him. (Id.)

Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: Alameda

County Sheriff Gregory Ahern and Alameda County

Sheriff's Deputies H.C. McKenzie, J. DeLeon, R. Kull,

A. Valvedia [sic], Smith, Fischer, C. Delima, and

Jones, as well as "others not yet named." (Id. at 1.) 

He seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

(July 1, 2009 Order at 1-2.)

The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. 

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 9
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

His claims for monetary damages against jail officials at the

Santa Rita County Jail and the North County Jail were dismissed

with leave to amend. Plaintiff was directed to "amend his

complaint to state that he seeks damages, and to allege

specifically how each named defendant actually and proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right, as directed

below." (July 1, 2009 Order at 3 (citing Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).) Plaintiff's claims against the Oakland

Police Department (OPD) stemming from a traffic stop on March 20,

2007 were found to be "unrelated to Plaintiff's claims against the

named defendants from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department." 

(July 1, 2009 Order at 3.) Because Plaintiff had "not properly

joined the claims against the OPD officers with his civil rights

action against these named defendants," the Court directed

Plaintiff to "bring those claims in a separate lawsuit against

these officers." (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff's complaint was

deficient because he "did not specifically address exhaustion of

the jails' grievance procedure." (Id. at 5.) The Court also

found that Plaintiff had "not linked any of the named Defendants

to his claims," and stated that "no claim for damages can proceed

unless Plaintiff amends his complaint to cure this pleading

deficiency." (Id. at 6.) Finally, the Court dismissed

Plaintiff's claim against the unnamed defendants. (Id. at 7.) 

The Court gave Plaintiff a thirty-day deadline to file an amended

complaint providing factual and legal bases for his claims. 

On August 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In

his amended complaint, Plaintiff again alleges multiple

constitutional violations. (Am. Compl. at 3.) He states that:

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 9
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

. . . Alameda County, SAC County, Marin County

Sheriff's, Oakland Police Dept. and Hayward Police Dept.

all acted in concert in a conspiracy from on or about 3-

20-07 till currently, to deprive and invade Plaintiff['s]

personal constitutional rights. The defendants used

server [sic] unlawful tactics and procedures throughout

the course of the overt acts herein; they beat Plaintiff

near death, threated [sic] Plaintiff with fear and

intimidation, invaded into Plaintiff's attorney client

relationships unlawfully using monitoring tatics [sic],

easedropping [sic] survalince [sic] . . . opening legal

mail outside the prences [sic] of Plaintiff while held in

A/S confinement units for unreasonable reasons, denied

medical treatments . . . .

(Id.) He also attaches twenty-two single-spaced handwritten pages

entitled "Supplemental with Points and Authorities Under Rules

15(a) - 15(c) (Amended Complaint)." (Attach. at 1.)

Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: Alameda County

Sheriff Gregory Ahern; Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies H.C.

McKenzie, R. Kull, A. Valvedra, W. Posey, Jones, Fisher, Smith, C.

Delima; Marin County Sheriff's Deputies Robert T. Doyle, J. Baker,

"G. F.," and "S. S.," Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies John

McGinness, and G. Hogan; Oakland Police Officers C. Crabtree, S.

Armerding, D. Walker, J. Doolittle, J. Clement; and the Hayward

Police Department. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Claims

Plaintiff's amended complaint is mostly handwritten. 

Although Plaintiff used the Court's civil rights complaint form

when he filed his amended complaint, as mentioned above, he has

attached twenty-two additional pages containing claims that cover

a variety of topics. He begins by stating that the "named above

defendants all acted in one way or another in connection to

deprive the Plaintiff of several U.S. Constitutional Rights (the

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 9
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

First, Fourth, Fifth, Six [sic], Eight [sic] and Fourteeth [sic]

Amendments.) All Defendants acted unlawful[ly] and with the

intent to commit an unlawful act." (Attach. at 1.) However,

Plaintiff does not clearly support his claims with facts relating

to these alleged violations. He has merely attached twenty-two

additional pages outlining his conclusory claims in an unorganized

fashion.

It is impossible to ascertain from Plaintiff's conclusory

allegations in his amended complaint what claims he seeks to bring

in federal court, much less how he exhausted his administrative

remedies as to those claims. His attachments also confuse matters

further by raising new arguments and claims.

"The Federal Rules require that averments 'be simple,

concise, and direct.'" McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th

Cir. 1996). Prolix, confusing complaints such as the amended

complaint Plaintiff has filed impose unfair burdens on litigants

and the court and fail to perform the essential functions of a

complaint. Cf. id. at 1179-80. Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended

complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to give

Plaintiff the opportunity to file a simple, concise and direct

complaint which states clearly and succinctly each claim he seeks

to bring in federal court and explains how he has exhausted his

administrative remedies as to each claim. Plaintiff's original

complaint alleged multiple constitutional violations, which he

experienced while he was incarcerated at Santa Rita County Jail

and North County Jail in 2007. Therefore, Plaintiff's amended

complaint may include only claims against the named Defendants

from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, as directed below.

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 4 of 9
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

II. Defendants

A. Defendants from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department

Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that the

actions of the named Defendants from the Alameda County Sheriff's

Department (ACSD) rise to the level of constitutional violations. 

As mentioned above, he is attempting to hold prison officials from

the ACSD -- specifically Defendants Ahern, McKenzie, Kull,

Valvedia, Posey, Jones, Fisher, Smith, Delima -- liable for the

claims in the amended complaint. Plaintiff must allege facts

showing what each defendant did that violated his constitutional

rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634 (sweeping conclusory

allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant's actions which

violated his or her rights). If Plaintiff claims that any of the

named Defendants are liable as supervisors, he must allege that

these Defendants "participated in or directed the violations, or

knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be

liable under § 1983 upon a showing of personal involvement in the

constitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection

between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional

violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446

(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). A supervisor

therefore generally "is only liable for constitutional violations

of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them." Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. A supervisor may be

liable for implementing "a policy so deficient that the policy

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 5 of 9
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

6

itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving

force of the constitutional violation." Redman, 942 F.2d at 1446;

see Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 917 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Because Plaintiff has not linked any of the named Defendants

from the ACSD to his claims, no claim for damages can proceed

unless Plaintiff amends his complaint to cure this pleading

deficiency. 

B. Defendants from the Oakland Police Department, the

Hayward Police Department, and the Marin County

Sheriff's Department

As mentioned above, the Court has previously instructed

Plaintiff that if he wished to sue the officers from the OPD

stemming from the traffic stop on March 20, 2007, then "he may

bring those claims in a separate lawsuit against these officers." 

(July 1, 2009 Order at 3.) In his amended complaint, Plaintiff

has named Defendants from the OPD. He has also added named

Defendants from the Marin County Sheriff's Department (MCSD). 

Finally, Plaintiff has named the Hayward Police Department (HPD)

as a Defendant in his amended complaint; however, Plaintiff has

not named specific Defendants from the HPD. Any claims Plaintiff

may have against specific Defendants from the HPD and from the

MCSD are unrelated to his claims against the named Defendants from

the ACSD and are not properly joined with his civil rights action

against the named ACSD Defendants. Accordingly, all claims

against the OPD, HPD and MCSD Defendants are DISMISSED without

prejudice to bringing those claims in separate lawsuits against

these Defendants.

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

C. Defendants from the Sacramento County Sheriff's

Department

If Plaintiff seeks to bring an action in federal court

against named Defendants from the Sacramento County Sheriff's

Department (SCSD), he must file a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly,

all claims against named Defendants from the SCSD are DISMISSED

without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to

amend. The amended pleading must be on the Court's civil right

complaint form and must include the caption and civil case number

used in this Order -- No. C 08-4179 CW (PR) -- and the words

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because his second

amended complaint will completely replace the original and amended

complaints, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he has

been given leave to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). He may not

incorporate material in his second amended complaint from his

original or amended complaints by reference. Plaintiff may

include only his claims of constitutional violations against the

named Defendants from the Alameda County Sheriff's Department,

which he experienced while he was incarcerated at Santa Rita

County Jail and North County Jail in 2007. Failure to file a

proper second amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline

will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 7 of 9
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Flowers4179.2ndDWLA.frm 8

failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. All claims against the named OPD, HPD and MCSD

Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing those

claims in a separate lawsuit against these Defendants.

4. All claims against named Defendants from the SCSD are

DISMISSED without prejudice. If Plaintiff seeks to bring an

action in federal court against these Defendants, he must file a

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern

District of California. 

5. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any 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).

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank

civil rights form along with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/3/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 8 of 9
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Flowers4179.2ndDWLA.frm 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-04179 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Joseph J. Flowers w/ blank civil rights form 

Marin County Jail

13 Peter Behr Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

Dated: February 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 35 Filed 02/03/10 Page 9 of 9