Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00509/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00509-0/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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion for Leave to File Suppl Compl

N:\Pro - Se\10.12.2007\05-0509 Losoya0509_dwlta.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LOSOYA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEAN S. WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-00509 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS

(Docket Nos. 10 & 17)

On February 3, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at

Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in Crescent City, filed a pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various PBSP employees for violations of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted his administrative appeals. 

Since filing his original complaint, plaintiff has filed two requests for leave to file a

supplemental complaint. (Docket Nos. 10 & 17). Plaintiff was granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a previous order (Docket No.

9).

///

///

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 21 Filed 10/12/07 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion for Leave to File Suppl Compl

N:\Pro - Se\10.12.2007\05-0509 Losoya0509_dwlta.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

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. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges the following: 1) his continued retention in the SHU is

unconstitutional; 2) prison officials are denying plaintiff equal protection and

subjecting him to “racial harassment”; 3) defendants are acting with deliberate

indifference with respect to plaintiff’s need for psychological and medical services

and access to the exercise yard; 4) he was denied his right to access to courts; 5)

plaintiff’s right to due process were violated during prison disciplinary proceedings;

6) plaintiff is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being used in

“human experimentation and research”; 7) defendants are refusing to allow him to

correspond with his brothers at other prisons; 8) he was denied assistance in filing

his appeals; and 9) he was denied a book because it did not comport with prison

regulations. 

Plaintiff’s claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, liberally construed, are cognizable

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 21 Filed 10/12/07 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion for Leave to File Suppl Compl

N:\Pro - Se\10.12.2007\05-0509 Losoya0509_dwlta.wpd 3

under § 1983 as violations against his constitutional rights. However, plaintiff has

failed to plead sufficient facts against specific defendants to support each claim. For

example, plaintiff has not identified the dates when the alleged unconstitutional

violations occurred, e.g., the dates of the specific prison disciplinary hearings when

he was denied due process and how he was denied due process at each hearing. 

These claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND in accordance

with the following. 

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting each claim against each individual

defendant separately in his amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief

from each defendant. Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he has, describe

what each defendant did or failed to do, and describe how each defendant’s acts or

omissions caused him injury. He should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e.,

“the defendants” or “officers”; rather, he should identify each involved defendant by

name and link each of them to a specific claim by explaining what each defendant

did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff’s eighth claim that he was denied assistance in filing his appeals is

not cognizable and is therefore DENIED. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860

(9th Cir. 2003) (holding here is no constitutional right to a prison administrative

appeal or grievance system). 

C. Supplemental Complaints

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s supplemental complaint filed on

October 7, 2005 (Docket No. 10), exhibits filed on October 19, 2006 (Docket No.

13), and second supplemental complaint filed on May 2, 2007 (Docket No. 17). The

additional claims contained in the supplemental complaints arise from events that

occurred since the original complaint was filed on February 3, 2005, and were not

exhausted at that time. Plaintiff admits this fact as he states in his first supplemental

complaint filed on October 7, 2005, “I am in the process of filing my appeal of this

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 21 Filed 10/12/07 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion for Leave to File Suppl Compl

N:\Pro - Se\10.12.2007\05-0509 Losoya0509_dwlta.wpd 4

issue.” (Suppl. Compl. at 5.) 

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); see Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where

administrative remedies are not exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to

the court it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the

complaint is actually filed). However, the PLRA does not require dismissal of the

entire complaint when a prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but not all, of the

claims included in the complaint. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 925-26 (2007)

(rejecting “total exhaustion-dismissal” rule); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170

(9th Cir. 2005) (same).

The proper treatment of a mixed complaint, i.e., a complaint with both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, will depend on the relatedness of the claims

contained within. Id. at 1175. When a prisoner has filed a mixed complaint and

wishes to proceed with only the exhausted claims, the district court should simply

dismiss the unexhausted claims when the unexhausted claims are not intertwined

with the properly exhausted claims. Id. On the other hand, when a plaintiff’s mixed

complaint includes exhausted and unexhausted claims that are closely related and

difficult to untangle, dismissal of the defective complaint with leave to amend to

allege only fully exhausted claims, is the proper approach. Id. at 1176.

Plaintiff alleges that he has exhausted all his claims in his original complaint. 

Plaintiff’s supplemental complaints include unexhausted claims which are unrelated

to the claims stated in his original complaint. Allowing plaintiff to add new and

unexhausted claims would result in a mixed petition subject to dismissal for the

reasons stated above. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s requests for leave to file

supplemental complaints (Docket Nos. 10 and 17) are DENIED. Plaintiff may file

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 21 Filed 10/12/07 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion for Leave to File Suppl Compl

N:\Pro - Se\10.12.2007\05-0509 Losoya0509_dwlta.wpd 5

new claims which arose since plaintiff filed his original complaint on February 3,

2005 and which have been properly exhausted in a separate action. 

 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT using the court’s form civil rights complaint. Plaintiff shall complete

the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this action (No. C 05-

00509 JW (PR)), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

2. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in

the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If

plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order,

the complaint will be dismissed. 

3. Plaintiff’s requests to file supplemental complaints (Docket Nos. 10 & 

17) are DENIED. The clerk shall attach a copy of the court’s form complaint to

plaintiff’s copy of this order for him to file a separate action on the new claims. 

4. It is plaintiffs’ 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,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: October 12, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 21 Filed 10/12/07 Page 5 of 5