Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00560-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

– 1 –

17cv560

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-0560-BAS-BLM

ORDER: 

(1) SUSTAINING OBJECTION 

TO REPORT & 

RECOMMENDATION (R&R)

[ECF No. 28]; 

(2) ADOPTING IN PART AND 

MODIFYING IN PART R&R 

[ECF No. 27]; AND

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS [ECF No. 25]

v.

D. PAMPLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jami Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brought his Complaint pursuant to Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. §1983, against 

Defendants D. Pamplin, G. Valdovinos, A. Massia, M. Morales, J. Heddy, O. 

Morales, M. Acuna, J. Wilborn, and W. Smith (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) 

Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 25.) 

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (R&R) from Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
– 2 –

17cv560

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

Barbara Mahor concerning Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 27.) Defendants have 

submitted an objection (“Objection) to a portion of the R&R. For the reasons stated

herein, the Court sustains Defendants’ Objection, modifies the R&R in part, and

otherwise approves and adopts the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s mother filed a report 

with the Office of Internal Affairs in July 2016, which alleged that Defendants 

Pamplin and Valdovinos engaged in misconduct and sexual harassment against 

Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) On August 15, 2016, Defendants Pamplin and 

Valdovinos approached the Plaintiff in his cell with a Rules Violation Report 

concerning Plaintiff’s alleged participation in a July 29, 2016 fight. (Id. at 5, Ex. B.) 

They asked Plaintiff to sign the report, but he refused. Defendant Valdovinos 

allegedly asked Plaintiff to step out of his cell, and subsequently sprayed Plaintiff 

with pepper spray in his face and continued to do so. (Id. at 5–6.) Defendant 

Valdovinos struck Plaintiff in the face and placed him in handcuffs, with Defendant 

Pamplin placing the Plaintiff in leg restraints and stepping on the restraints, causing 

Plaintiff pain in his ankles. (Id. at 6.) They rammed Plaintiff’s head into a door and 

threw him onto the ground outside the housing unit without provocation. (Id.) 

On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant O. Morales asked him 

whether he wanted to see the nurse, which Plaintiff declined out of fear that he would 

be subjected to another instance of excessive force. (Id. at 10.) Defendant O. 

Morales returned and told Plaintiff that the nurse wanted to him. (Id.) On the way 

to the nurse, Defendants Heddy and Acuna approached Plaintiff from behind and 

Defendant Heddy placed a restraint chain on Plaintiff’s handcuffs. (Id.) After 

Plaintiff met with the nurse, the three Defendants escorted him out of the medical 

trailer and as Plaintiff walked down the ramp, Defendants grabbed Plaintiff’s arms 

and the restrain chain with enough force to pull Plaintiff’s arms forward and drag 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
– 3 –

17cv560

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

him across the gravel and pavement toward his housing unit. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges 

he sustained serious injuries to his knees, shoulders, and right thumb and was denied 

medical treatment despite his pleas. (Id.) Once Plaintiff arrived at the housing unit, 

he alleges that Defendant O. Morales kneed Plaintiff in the back as he lay face down 

on the floor. (Id.) 

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 20, 2017, alleging that he suffered cruel

and unusual punishment and was retaliated against by prison officials in violation of 

his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He seeks in part injunctive 

relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and special damages. (Id. at 15.) 

Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds. First, Defendants moved 

to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 

and 20 on the ground that the Complaint improperly asserts two different claims 

based on two different events. (ECF No. 25-1 at 10–11.) Second, Defendants moved 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants O. Morales, 

Heddy, and Acuna under the “favorable termination doctrine.” (Id. at 12–14.) Third, 

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendants Smith, Wilborn, Massia, and M. Morales for failure to state a claim. (Id.

at 15–16.) Fourth, Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims based on 

an officer’s alleged filing of a false report or making false allegations against 

Plaintiff. (Id. at 16.) Lastly, Defendants moved to dismiss all claims made against 

Defendants in their official capacity. (Id. at 16–17.) Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

On November 21, 2017, Judge Major issued an R&R on Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) The R&R recommends: (1) denying Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Rules 18 and 20; (2) granting without leave to amend 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Wilborn, Smith, Massia, and M. Morales; (3) denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
– 4 –

17cv560

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

the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Heddy, O. Morales, and Acuna; 

(4) granting without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims for 

monetary damages against the Defendants in their official capacity; and (5) granting 

without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for 

injunctive relief. (Id. at 22.) Written objections to the R&R were due by December 

11, 2017, with replies to any objections due by January 2, 2018. (Id.) Defendants 

timely filed their Objection to the R&R on November 27, 2017, solely objecting to 

the R&R’s first recommendation. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff neither filed an objection, 

nor a reply to Defendants’ Objection. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, 

receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). An objecting party 

may “serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations,” and “a party may respond to another party's objections.” FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). In reviewing an R&R, “the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); United States 

v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (when objections are made, the court must 

make a de novo determination of the factual findings to which there are objections). 

“If neither party contests the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact, the court may 

assume their correctness and decide the motion on the applicable law.” Orand v. 

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The court reviews de novo the 

magistrate judge’s conclusions of law. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 

1995); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Court Sustains Defendants’ Objection 

The Court first addresses Defendants’ Objection to a portion of the R&R. 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
– 5 –

17cv560

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

Defendants’ Objection challenges the correctness of the factual finding and law 

underlying the R&R’s recommendation to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 18 

and 20. (ECF No. 28.) Conducting a de novo review, the Court agrees with 

Defendants. 

Rule 20(a) enables permissive joinder of multiple defendants in one action 

when two requirements are meant. First, the plaintiff must seek relief against 

multiple defendants jointly, severally, or the relief must relate to or arise out of the 

same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. FED. R.CIV.

P. 20(a)(2)(A); League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 

F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1977). Second, some question of law or fact common to all 

defendants must arise in the action. FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)(B); League to Save 

Lake Tahoe, 558 F.2d at 914. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that the 

Complaint improperly brings unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single 

action. (ECF No. 25-1 at 4.) Defendants argued that while Plaintiff asserts claims 

of retaliation and excessive force for the August 15, 2016 incident involving 

Defendants Pamplin and Valdovinos, he alleges a separate claim of excessive force 

for the August 16, 2016 incident against Defendants O. Morales, Heddy, and Acuna. 

(Id. at 5.) Defendants pointed to the absence of allegations connecting either set of 

Defendants with the other, and observed that Plaintiff filed separate inmate 

complaints about each incidents and was separately disciplined for each. (Id. (Citing 

ECF No. 1-2 at 3–23, 86–9, ECF No. 1-3 at 57–67).) 

The R&R concedes that “Plaintiff’s claims are against two different groups of 

Defendants for two different assaults.” (ECF No. 27 at 8.) This determination 

warrants a grant of Defendants’ motion. “Unrelated claims involving different 

defendants belong in different suits.” Sua v. Espinda, No. 09-cv-0592 SOM, 2010 

WL 184314, at *2 (D. Haw. Jan. 19, 2010). However, the R&R concluded that 

dismissal was inappropriate because “the alleged assaults occurred within twenty 

four hours of each other and were at the hands of Defendants who work together.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
– 6 –

17cv560

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

(ECF No. 27 at 8.) This conclusion was not correct for two reasons. First, temporal 

proximity is insufficient to link two unrelated events for the purposes of Rule 20, 

even when the alleged acts are similar. See Buren v. Waddle, No. 1:14-cv-01894-

MSJ, 2014 WL 7337580, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014); Yocom v. Grounds, No. C 

11–5741 SBA (PR), 2013 WL 5487357, at *2 (“Mere proximity in time and 

similarity in the types of problems . . . are not enough to satisfy Rule 20(a)(2).”). 

Second, the R&R’s conclusion that the incidents occurred at the hands of Defendants 

who “work together” is also an insufficient basis in this case to satisfy Rule 20(a)(2). 

Although it is not clear from the R&R was the basis for this finding was, the Court 

observes that there are no allegations in the Complaint which show that all the 

Defendants worked together generally, or specifically acted together in a continuous 

course of conduct against the Plaintiff. If the finding is premised on the fact that all 

the Defendants worked at the same institution, the Court disagrees. The fact that the 

Defendant-officers involved in the incidents work at the same institution is not 

enough to show that distinct incidents are related. See Bracken v. Duran, No. 1:17–

cv–00306–AWI–JLT (PC), 2017 WL 2654838, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2017)

(finding Rule 18 and 20 dismissal appropriate although all three correctional officers 

worked at same institution). 

While conceding that “Plaintiff has not explicitly stated that the assaults were 

linked,” the R&R further determined that “it was not clear the assaults were 

unrelated and the Court will construe the pleadings liberally giving the pro se 

Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.” (ECF No 27 at 3.) It is true that in a civil rights 

case brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and 

afford the plaintiff the benefit any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police 

Dep’t, 830 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, a pleading must nevertheless 

contain factual allegations which the court can construe liberally. Here, the 

Complaint admittedly does not contain factual allegations linking the two different 

assaults at the hands of different defendants, or which otherwise show that they 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
– 7 –

17cv560

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

overlap. See, e.g., Klan v. Dublin Police Dep’t, No. 16-cv-00833-JCS, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 90404, at *23 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) (finding Rule 20 dismissal of 

a claim appropriate in pro se action because “there is no factual overlap” between 

two alleged incidents that occurred in sequence). Therefore, even construing the 

Complaint liberally, it does not satisfy Rule 20(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Court 

sustains Defendants’ Objection to the R&R. 

In sustaining the Objection, however, the Court will not dismiss the entire 

action because “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action.” 

FED.R.CIV. P. 21. Furthermore, a court may only dismiss a complaint without leave 

to amend if it is absolutely clear that amendment would be futile.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 

375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Before dismissing a pro se complaint, a district 

court must also provide the litigant notice “of the deficiencies in his complaint in 

order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, it is not clear that 

amendment would be futile. This Order has identified the deficiencies in the 

Complaint and Plaintiff may be able to allege facts showing that the August 15, 2016 

and August 16, 2016 events are sufficiently related for the purposes of Rule 20. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 18 

and 20, but also grants Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint on this issue. If 

Plaintiff chooses to file an amended Complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff that he 

must allege specific facts which show that the August 15, 2016 and August 16, 2016 

events are related if he intends to keep all Defendants in this case. If Plaintiff does 

not file an amended complaint, the Court will sever Defendants O. Morales, Heddy, 

and Acuna from this action pursuant to Rule 21 without prejudice to Plaintiff filing

a different lawsuit against those Defendants in an appropriate court. 

B. The Court Adopts the R&R’s Remaining Recommendations

Lastly, the Court addresses the remaining recommendations in the R&R. 

Because neither party has objected to those recommendations, the Court may accept 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
– 8 –

17cv560

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

the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions on that basis alone. However, having reviewed 

the remainder of the R&R and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court concludes 

that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reasoned and correct. Accordingly, the 

Court approves and adopts the R&R as to the remaining recommendations. 

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 

28.)

2. The Court MODIFIES the R&R’s recommendation to deny dismissal 

pursuant to Rules 18 and 20, and otherwise APPROVES AND ADOPTS all other 

recommendations set forth in the R&R. (ECF No. 27.)

3. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth 

Amendment claims against Defendants O. Morales, Heddy, and Acuna pursuant to 

Heck v. Humphrey. 

4. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 

18 and 20. The Court further GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. If 

he so chooses, he may file an amended complaint no later than Monday, February 

26, 2018. An amended complaint must show how the August 15 and August 16, 

2016 events are related. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete by itself 

without reference to the Complaint. Defendants not named and any claim not realleged will be considered waived. See Civ. R. 15.1; see also Lacey v. Maricopa 

Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to 

amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived 

if not repled”). 

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by that date, the Court will, on 

its own, sever Defendants O. Morales, Heddy, and Acuna from this action pursuant 

to Rule 21 without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a different lawsuit against those

Defendants in an appropriate court. 

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
– 9 –

17cv560

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. The Court GRANTS without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Wilborn, Smith, Massia, 

and M. Morales. 

6. The Court GRANTS without leave to amend Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the claims for monetary damages against the Defendants in their official 

capacity and the claim for injunctive relief.

7. The Court directs the Clerk to send the Plaintiff a hard copy of this 

Order, a copy of the R&R, and a court-approved civil rights complaint form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00560-BAS-BLM Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9