Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04115/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04115-0/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 

KENNETH GIBBS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. WOOD, et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-4115-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison-Los Angeles 

County, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in 

a separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for 

initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I 

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). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 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

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). 

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). 

II 

Plaintiff describes three different incidents where he 

alleges he was subject to retaliation or defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

“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). 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 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

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 18(a) provides: "A party 

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as 

independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, 

equitable, or maritime as the party has against an opposing 

party." "Thus 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 claims against 

different defendants belong in different suits[.]" Id. 

It is true that Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) provides that 

"[p]ersons ...may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) 

any right 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 (B) any question of law or fact common to all 

defendants will arise in the action." However, "[a] buckshot 

complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, 

a suit complaining that A defrauded the 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." Id. at 607. 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 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

In this action Plaintiff has presented unrelated claims 

against several defendants. The complaint will be dismissed with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff should focus on related incidents and 

he must identify the specific actions of the defendants and 

describe how they violated his constitutional rights. He must 

present more than conclusory allegations. As currently 

presented, the allegations fail to state a claim. 

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 

570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the 

“plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 

be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded 

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and 

then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 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

proceed against in this action. The pleading must state clearly 

how each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated 

Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 

634. The pleading must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must 

file all of his claims in one complaint and not present them 

piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other documents. 

Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within twentyeight days of this order will result in the dismissal of this 

action without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “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 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 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

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/16/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Gibbs4115.dwlta.docx

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 4 Filed 11/17/15 Page 6 of 6