Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07708/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07708-2/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

ADRIAN SOLORIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.E. DUCART, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07708-YGR (PR)

SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution, filed a pro 

se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional 

rights during his previous incarceration at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff’s 

twenty-four-page complaint raised multiple allegations with respect to events that occurred at 

PBSP sometime between 2016 to 2017. See id. On July 12, 2019, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend with 

various instructions to correct certain deficiencies, including that Plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that complies with the joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). 

The Court provided Plaintiff with the rules regarding joinder of Defendants as well as other 

pleading requirements.

Plaintiff has since filed his Amended Complaint (dkt. 15), which the Court now reviews 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will again dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with 

leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that complies with the necessary pleading 

requirements.

II. DISCUSSION

In its July 12, 2019 Order, the Court noted that the allegations in the complaint covered a 

span of time of almost one year, specifically from May 2016 through March 2017, during which 

period Plaintiff was incarcerated at PBSP, and asserted multiple claims, stating as follows:

When the allegations in the complaint concerning his confinement at 

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 7
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

PBSP are liberally construed, Plaintiff seems to state the following 

claims for relief: (1) unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff’s property in 

May 2016; (2) denial of legal materials on October 4, 2016 and failure 

to train properly the prison librarian; (3) denial of medical care on 

November 4, 2016 and failure to train properly medical personnel; 

(4) discrimination using “anti-Muslim slurs” and denial of Halal 

meals on January 3, 2017, as well as failure to train properly 

correctional officers not to discriminate based on religion; 

(5) retaliation (based on Plaintiff filing grievances) by spreading 

“false rumors” to other prisoners causing Plaintiff to be in danger 

while housed in general population on February 20, 2017, and failure 

to train properly correctional officers to prevent retaliation; 

(6) retaliation (again based on Plaintiff filing grievances) and “mail 

censorship” on March 9, 2017; and (7) failing to refund Plaintiff’s 

money for “unfair business practice[s]” by the prison canteen after the 

loss of items from his order on March 12, 2017. Plaintiff names the 

aforementioned twenty defendants in connection with the noted 

claims.

Dkt. 13 at 3.

In his twenty-four-page Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has once again raised unrelated 

claims and Defendants. The claims in the Amended Complaint are wide-ranging and include

similar alleged violations of multiple constitutional rights as the original complaint (albeit 

presented in a different order) against eighteen Defendants, including: (1) discrimination relating 

to the denial of Halal meals on January 3, 2017; (2) retaliation (based on Plaintiff filing 

grievances) by spreading “false rumors” on February 20, 2017; (3) retaliation (again based on 

Plaintiff filing grievances) and “mail censorship”; (4) denial of legal materials on October 4, 2016 

and failure to train properly the prison librarian; (5) denial of medical care on November 4, 2016 

and failure to train properly medical personnel; (6) failing to refund Plaintiff’s money for “unfair 

business practices” by the prison canteen after the loss of items from his order on March 12, 2017; 

and (7) unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff’s property in May 2016. Dkt. 15 at 3-5.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s instructions to file only those claims against 

Defendants that are properly joined. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint cannot proceed. 

Because the Court cannot determine on which of the improperly joined claims Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed, the Court now dismisses the Amended Complaint with leave to amend, as set forth 

below.

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 7
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

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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 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 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).

B. Legal Claims

As mentioned, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not clearly set out information 

regarding why his claims and Defendants are properly joined.

As the Court previously notified Plaintiff, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20 

provides,

All persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if there is 

asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right 

to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of 

transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common 

to all defendants will arise in the action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (emphasis added). Further, Rule 21 provides that where parties are 

misjoined, they may be “dropped or added by order of the court . . . on such terms as are just.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Rule 20(a) requires that a plaintiff cannot assert unrelated claims against different 

defendants. In his SAC, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the same transaction, 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (b) present questions of law or fact 

common to all defendants named therein. Claims that do not satisfy Rule 20(a) must be alleged in 

separate complaints filed in separate actions.

In this case, Plaintiff asserts unrelated claims against different Defendants. Plaintiff has 

again repeated the same errors in his amended complaint. There does not appear to be any 

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 7
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

commonality of right to relief arising out of his claims. Plaintiff cannot join these claims, he must 

file them as separate lawsuits, if he is so inclined. With regard to the instant action, this Court 

providing Plaintiff with one further attempt to determine himself which of the many listed claims 

he wishes to proceed on. Therefore, the Court now dismisses the Amended Complaint with leave 

to amend, providing Plaintiff with one further opportunity to file a complaint that only includes 

properly joined defendants and claims. 

The Court again reminds Plaintiff that in filing his SAC, Plaintiff should also comply with 

the appropriate rules regarding civil complaints. Rule 8(d) requires that each averment of a 

pleading be “simple, concise, and direct,” and may be the basis for dismissal. McHenry v. Renne, 

84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, 

prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). 

In his SAC, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain and separate statement regarding each 

claim: the specifics regarding the mistreatment he suffered, how it violated his constitutional 

rights, whether he suffered any injury as a result, and the conduct of each individual Defendant 

that he asserts is responsible for a constitutional violation. Plaintiff must specifically identify what 

each named Defendant did or did not do in order to state a claim with regard to each separate 

claim. While Plaintiff may attach exhibits in support of his claims, he must identify how each 

applies to his claims. 

In his SAC, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person for the claimed violation 

of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the 

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

right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 

F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the 

meaning of section 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. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 

(9th Cir. 1995) (prison official’s failure to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may 

be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead 

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 7
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

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

844 F.2d at 634. 

With regard to the supervisory employees named, Plaintiff should be mindful that a 

supervisor may be liable under section 1983 only 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. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 

1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for 

constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the 

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Finally, the SAC need not be long. In fact, a brief and clear statement with regard to each 

claim listing each Defendant’s actions regarding that claim is preferable. Plaintiff should state his 

claims simply and need not present a lengthy history unrelated to the actions he complains about. 

The SAC should comply with Rule 8 and provides a brief and coherent recitation of his claims 

regarding only those Defendants who are properly joined. Plaintiff must also prove that he 

exhausted all of his claims against each Defendant before he filed this action. 

Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to 

correct the deficiencies outlined above.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above. 

The Court repeats its instructions on how to properly amend a complaint, which is taken from its 

July 12, 2019 Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend, see dkt. 13 at 5-6:

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to give him 

the opportunity to file a simple, concise and direct SAC which:

a. States clearly and simply each claim he seeks to bring in federal court as 

required under Rule 8, and he should:

i. Set forth each claim in a separate numbered paragraph;

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 7
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

ii. Identify each Defendant and the specific action or actions each

Defendant took, or failed to take, that allegedly caused the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and

iii. Identify the injury resulting from each claim;

b. Explains how he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to each 

claim as against each Defendant before he filed this action as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 

or whether such remedies were “unavailable” to him within the meaning of the statute;

c. Only alleges those claims that are properly joined under Rule 20(a) 

(concerning joinder of claims and Defendants) or, stated differently, the SAC may only allege 

claims that:

i. Arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences; and 

ii. Present questions of law or fact common to all Defendants; 

d. Does not make conclusory allegations linking each Defendant by listing 

them as having direct involvement to his claims without specifying how each Defendant was 

linked through their actions; and

e. Does not name any Defendant who did not act but is linked solely in his or 

her respondent superior capacity or against whom Plaintiff cannot allege facts that would establish 

either supervisorial or municipal liability.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file his 

SAC as set forth above. Plaintiff must use the attached civil rights form, write the case number for 

this action—Case No. C 18-7708 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label the complaint “Second 

Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form. Because the SAC completely 

replaces the original and amended complaints, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes 

to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 

(1992). He may not incorporate material from either the original or amended complaints by 

reference. If Plaintiff wishes to attach any additional pages to the civil rights form, he shall 

maintain the same format as the form, i.e., answer only the questions asked in the “Exhaustion of 

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Administrative Remedies” section without including a narrative explanation of each grievance 

filed. Plaintiff’s failure to file his SAC by the twenty-eight-day deadline or to correct the 

aforementioned deficiencies outlined above will result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice.

3. It is Plaintiff’s 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. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must file a notice of change of address promptly, specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form along

with his copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

January 13, 2020

Case 4:18-cv-07708-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 7