Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00340-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG REED,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT HINSHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

(THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Craig Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

February 28, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an amended 

complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. In the paragraphs that 

follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to the claims. 

Plaintiff should carefully review the standards and amend only those claims that he believes, in 

good faith, are cognizable.

///

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 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

2

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 

“seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 

at 969.

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 2 of 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

3

III.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently in custody at the Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, 

California. However, the incidents described in Plaintiff’s complaint took place while he was 

incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, 

California. Plaintiff names Sergeant S. Hinshaw, Lieutenant B. Odle, Correctional Officer H. 

Johnson, Lieutenant J. Gallagher, Correctional Officer N. Johnson, and Lieutenant F.A. 

Rodriguez as defendants (collectively referred to as “Defendants”).

Plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple incidents of alleged retaliation that occur over a 

period of four years, against multiple defendants, and appear to be unrelated. The Court will not 

summarize all of the allegations in the complaint since it entails a variety of apparently unrelated 

claims that would not present a cohesive basis for analysis.

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 18 and 20

A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the 

same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple 

defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or 

series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate 

lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only intended 

to avoid confusion that arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 

required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent prisoners from circumventing the three strikes 

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 3 of 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

4

rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple incidents that occur over a period of four years 

involving claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff brings suit against 

six named defendants. Plaintiff is advised that his claims do not arise out of the same 

“transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions.” It appears that Plaintiff attempts to link all the 

incidents described in his complaint by calling them all acts of retaliation. However, the incidents 

described do not involve common questions of fact. Many incidents occurred in different years 

and involved different Defendants. The facts necessary to prove these claims are unique. 

Plaintiff is not permitted to raise all his claims in a single action under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 20(a)(2) simply because all the incidents occurred by prison officials in the same 

prison. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his amended complaint must 

be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a single claim against a single 

defendant. Plaintiff may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same 

defendant under Rule 18. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff may also add any additional claims against 

other defendants if those claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions as his original claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Plaintiff is advised that a claim does 

not arise from a common transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions merely because both 

claims involve retaliation. Any attempt to join claims that are not permitted by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure will result in those claims being dismissed as improperly joined.

B. Rule 8

The Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure regarding the general formatting of his complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint must contain 

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. 

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 4 of 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

5

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A 

party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable 

to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate 

transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

Although Plaintiff does state his claims in separate counts, each count contains multiple unrelated 

allegations. 

The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Because Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with Rule 8(a), the Court declines to expend 

its already taxed resources with attempting to sort out his claims. Plaintiff must submit a 

complaint to the Court that meets the requirements of Rule 8.

C. First Amendment—Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 

such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did 

not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim 

v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 5 of 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

6

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 

thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “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.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 

220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended 

complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 

811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed February 28, 2011, is dismissed for failure to follow the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 6 of 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

7

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00340-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 06/21/13 Page 7 of 7