Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02687/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02687-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1 at 4.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK D. MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2687 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Derrick D. Moore, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to

amend. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks 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. 

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 6 Filed 10/01/15 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

28 U.S.C. § 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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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, 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. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of

each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

deprivation. Id. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead

“set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Id.

at 634. 

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 6 Filed 10/01/15 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

II. Legal Claims

The complaint indicates that there are multiple Plaintiffs in this case, although

Plaintiff Moore is the only Plaintiff to have signed the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that

Santa Rita County Jail is violating their right to equal protection in two ways. First, inmates

housed in state prison are eligible for 33% work time credits while Plaintiffs, housed at the

county facility, are not. Second, inmates housed in state prison are afforded cheaper

commissary items and allowed other privileges, whereas Plaintiffs are not. Liberally

construed, these allegations state a cognizable claim for relief. 

However, Plaintiffs next allege that the county facility has “very poor health care.” 

Plaintiffs are advised that this does not state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs because it does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face. To state a claim for relief, a complaint “must contain sufficient

allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend

itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition, the facts

alleged “must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require

the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Id.

Because district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to

correct any deficiency in their complaints, this claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

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

Next, Plaintiffs name as a defendant the State of California. However, the Eleventh

Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of

another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon,

473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). The Eleventh Amendment serves as a specific constitutional

bar against hearing even federal claims which would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of a

federal court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 120 (1984). 

Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity through section 1983

because a state or state agency is not a “person” for purposes of the statute. Will v. Michigan

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989). Thus, the State of California is

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 6 Filed 10/01/15 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

DISMISSED with prejudice.

In addition, the Court considers the procedural hurdles to Plaintiffs’ joinder. If

Plaintiffs proceed as a group, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each Plaintiff must

sign every filing made in this case on behalf of the group. The failure of any Plaintiff to sign

a particular pleading could be prejudicial to him and possibly subject his claims to dismissal. 

The routine practices of incarceration often prohibit or delay communications between

prisoners. For these reasons, the Court is not inclined to accept multiple filings from

different Plaintiffs in the same case, or to delay filing deadlines until all Plaintiffs can sign a

single pleading. The interests of justice are not served by joinder of Plaintiffs in this action. 

Rule 20 is designed to promote judicial economy, and reduce inconvenience, delay, and

added expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Here, efficiency will not be promoted by allowing all

Plaintiffs to bring a single case. Avoidance of possible prejudice to individual Plaintiffs,

delay reduction, and avoidance of confusion call for Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed separately. 

Moreover, severing Plaintiffs will not prejudice any substantial right. Therefore, with the

exception of the lead Plaintiff Moore, all other Plaintiffs are DISMISSED from this

complaint without prejudice.

Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that he must have exhausted his administrative remedies

before filing suit in federal court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42

U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison,

or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the

discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner

exhausted his available administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the

prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199

(9th Cir. 2002). From the face of the complaint, it does not appear that Plaintiff has

exhausted his administrative remedies.

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 6 Filed 10/01/15 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

CONCLUSION

1. The State of California is DISMISSED with prejudice. All Plaintiffs except

Plaintiff Moore is DISMISSED from this action. 

2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff believes he can

cure the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, he must file an amended complaint

within twenty-eight days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 15-2687 NC (PR)) and the

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file an amended complaint

within twenty-eight days and in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal

of this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form

along with his copy of this order. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

4. It is 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

“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: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 6 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 5