Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00555/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00555-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGINA BARAJAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00555-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING LEAVE TO 

FILE A BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTY 

PAGES

Re: Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 

separate order. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. 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 from an officer or an 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. See 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 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 California

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). 

“[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).

B. Complaint

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because it does not comply with Rule 

20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20(a)(2) provides that all persons “may be joined 

in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that “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). 

The complaint alleges unrelated claims against different sets of defendants, and should 

therefore be raised in separate suits. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (“Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits.”).

First, Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2018, when he was arrested by defendant Redwood 

City Police Officer Barajas, Defendant Barajas denied his request to bring his insulin and other 

medications to jail pursuant to policies promulgated by defendants Redwood City and Redwood 

City Policy Department. He also alleges that defendant Redwood City Police Officer Lee Junsun 

failed to intervene when Defendant Barajas denied him his needed medication, and that defendant 

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 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 California

Redwood City Police Department Chief Mulholland did not discipline Defendant Barajas or 

respond to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding Defendant Barajas. 

Second, Plaintiff alleges that, from April to July 2018, while incarcerated by San Mateo 

County, he was denied adequate medical care because he was not provided with diabetic shoes, 

eyeglasses, an appointment with an optometrist, and treatment for his glaucoma. He alleges that 

the following individuals, agencies, or municipalities are responsible for the denial of medical 

care: San Mateo County, San Mateo County’s Sheriff’s Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos 

Bolanos; Correctional Health Services; Correctional Health Services Director Carlos Morales; 

Maguire Correctional Facility Captain Fitzpatrick; San Mateo Public Health Department; and San 

Mateo Public Health Department Kimberlee Kamura.

Third, Plaintiff alleges that in February 17, 2016, he fell and injured his right shoulder, and 

that Dr. Lindquist provided inadequate medical treatment when he failed to arrange for Plaintiff to 

receive physical therapy.

Fourth, Plaintiff alleges that San Mateo Sheriff’s Office’s Food Services Department and 

Food Manager violated his right to exercise his religion when they prepared his meals using nonKosher utensils. 

Fifth, Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2018, Safeway employee Irene Guzman acted under 

color of state law and in concert with police officers when she pushed a shopping cart into 

Plaintiff and injured his right leg. He alleges that Safeway CEO Robert Edwards violated his 

constitutional rights when he failed to investigate the incident or discipline Guzman.

These five incidents are unrelated in that they arise out of different occurrences and/or do 

not share a common question of law or fact. Plaintiff must seek relief for these five occurrences in 

separate lawsuits. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he may only seek relief for 

one of these occurrences in this action. 

Plaintiff’s complaint also suffers from additional deficiencies, which the Court explains 

below to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint.

First, Plaintiff has alleged that various supervisors or municipal entities are liable for the 

actions of their subordinates and employees, respectively. There is no respondeat superior liability 

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 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 California

under § 1983, and a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated the 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights is not sufficient, standing alone, to impose liability. Monell v. New 

York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691–92 (1978). A supervisor may be liable under 

§1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a 

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional 

violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, to state a claim against a 

supervisory official, the plaintiff must allege that the official personally participated in the 

constitutional deprivation, or that the supervisor was aware of widespread abuses and, with 

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent the 

misconduct. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, a supervisor’s 

failure to respond to notices (letters, complaints) regarding constitutional violations previously 

committed by an employee does not establish § 1983 liability for the past constitutional violations. 

In other words, a supervisor is not liable for a constitutional violation that she or he did not know 

would occur. 

Similarly, municipal entities such as the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, the Redwood 

City Police Department and the San Mateo County Department of Public Health, also cannot be 

held liable on a respondeat superior theory, or on the theory that it is responsible for the actions of 

its employees. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (holding municipalities cannot be held liable under 

Section 1983 based upon respondeat superior theory). However, local governments, such as San 

Mateo County and Redwood City, are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where 

official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. To impose 

municipal liability under Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must 

show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) 

that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the 

constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 

(9th Cir. 1997).

Second, Plaintiff has alleged that certain defendants have violated his constitutional rights 

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 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 California

because they failed to respond to or process his grievances or complaints. Generally speaking, the 

failure to process or respond to Plaintiff’s inmate grievances does not give rise to a separate due 

process claim under § 1983 because there is no constitutional right to a prison or jail 

administrative appeal or grievance system in California, and therefore no due process liability for 

failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 

(9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the refusal to 

process or respond to grievances that inform prison officials of an ongoing medical need and 

request treatment of the medical need could establish liability under the Eighth Amendment for 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Cf. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 

2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, for instance, 

if he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s request for help). 

Third, Plaintiff has alleged that private actors Guzman and Edwards are liable under § 

1983. However, “[s]tate action may be found . . . only if[] there is such a close nexus between the 

State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the 

State itself.” Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) 

(citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)). The 

Ninth Circuit uses four approaches to determine whether private conduct is attributable to the 

state: “(1) public function; (2) joint action; (3) governmental compulsion or coercion; and (4) 

governmental nexus.” Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). 

Under the joint action test, a court considers whether “the state has so far insinuated itself into a 

position of interdependence with the private entity that it must be recognized as a joint participant 

in the challenged activity. This occurs when the state knowingly accepts the benefits derived from 

unconstitutional behavior.” Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 

1995) (internal citations, brackets and quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 

deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff 

shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 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 California

number used in this order, Case No. C 19-00555 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all 

the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior 

complaint by reference. 

Plaintiff’s request to file a brief over fifty pages is DENIED. Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff states 

that he requires more than fifty pages for his complaint because of the extent of the constitutional 

violations committed by Defendants. However, Plaintiff may not seek relief for all constitutional 

violations he has suffered in one complaint if the complaint does not comply with Rule 20 of the 

Federal Rules of the Civil Procedure. If the amended complaint complies with Rule 20, it is 

unlikely that Plaintiff will require more than fifty pages for his complaint. In preparing an 

amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised that a brief and clear statement with regard to each claim 

listing each defendant’s actions regarding that claim is preferable. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/24/2019 

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00555-HSG Document 18 Filed 07/24/19 Page 6 of 6