Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, et al, 

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-11-1907 EFB P

vs.

G.A. THUMSER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff Thomas Heilman’s civil rights complaint,

purportedly brought on behalf of nine other plaintiffs, who are all currently incarcerated at

California Medical Facility. Also pending is Heilman’s motion for a court order permitting the

plaintiffs to meet to discuss this action, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

////

1

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 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

The complaint filed in this action is signed by plaintiff Thomas Heilman, who identifies

himself as a the “lead plaintiff” in this action. See Dckt. No. 1 at 8, 19. However, this action

may not proceed as a class action. Heilman, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, cannot

“fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir.

1982) (stating that a party must assert his own rights, not those of third parties) (citing Duke

Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 80 (1978)); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.

490, 499 (1974) (“The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect

against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others

collaterally. A federal court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff

himself has suffered ‘some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action

. . . .’”); see also Swygert v. Veal, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34655, 2008 WL 724193, at *3 (E.D.

Cal. Mar. 17, 2008) (“It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the

interests of a class. . . . This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class

representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se.”). Moreover, plaintiff has not complied

with the requirements of Rule 23. This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action

and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff, Thomas Heilman.

The additional nine plaintiffs, who have filed declarations consenting to “being included”

in this litigation, may not be joined in this action, and instead, must proceed with their own

separate lawsuits. See Dckt. No. 1 at 23-30. Generally, “Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure permits the joinder of plaintiffs in one action if: (1) the plaintiffs assert any right

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

and (2) there are common questions of law or fact. If the test for permissive joinder is not

satisfied, a court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no substantial right

will be prejudiced by the severance.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997)

(internal citations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for

2

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 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

dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or

drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.”). However, actions brought

by multiple prisoners in pro se present unique problems not presented by ordinary civil litigation. 

For example, transfer of one or more plaintiffs to different institutions or release on parole, as

well as the challenges to communication among plaintiffs presented by confinement, may cause

delay and confusion. 

In addition, the interplay of the filing fee provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act

of 1995 (“PLRA”) suggests that prisoners may not bring multi-plaintiff actions, but rather must

each proceed separately. To proceed with a civil action each plaintiff must pay the $350 filing

fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submit the

affidavit and trust account statement required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The PLRA expressly

requires that a prisoner, where proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the full amount of the filing

fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). This provision reflected Congress’s intent to reduce the volume of

frivolous prisoner litigation in the federal courts. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1196-97

(11th Cir. 2001); 141 Cong. Rec. S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1995) (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl)

(“Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the

federal judicial system by paying a small filing fee on commencement of lawsuits. In doing so,

the provision will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force

prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively.”); see also Oliver v. Keller,

289 F.3d 623, 627-28 (9th Cir. 2002). In order not to undermine the PLRA’s deterrent purpose,

courts have agreed that prisoner-plaintiffs who proceed together in one action must each pay the

full filing fee. E.g., Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2004); Hubbard, 262

F.3d at 1197-98. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(3) provides that “in no event shall the filing fee

collected exceed the amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a civil

action.” If multiple prisoners were permitted to proceed with a joint action, and each paid the

full filing fee in accordance with § 1915(b)(1) and the apparent intent of Congress, the amount of

3

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 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

fees collected would exceed the amount permitted by statute for commencement of the action, in

violation of § 1915(b)(3). 

To avoid the problems related to case-management and filing fees, permissive joinder of

the named plaintiffs in this action is denied. With the exception of plaintiff Thomas Heilman, all

other plaintiffs are dismissed from this action. Accordingly, Heilman’s motion for a court order

allowing all plaintiffs to meet to discuss this case is also denied.

Plaintiff Thomas Heilman has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 2. The application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having

custody of plaintiff Heilman to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the

filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

If plaintiff Heilman wishes to proceed with this action as an individual suit, he must file

an amended complaint that links specific acts or omissions by specific defendants to a

deprivation of his rights only, and not to a purported class of plaintiffs. Any amended complaint

must adhere to the following requirements.

Any amended complaint shall identify each defendant in both the caption and the body of

the amended complaint, and clearly set forth the allegations against each such defendant. 

Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any amended complaint must include

“a short and plain statement of the claim” showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Any amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in

the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

4

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 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

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).

It appears plaintiff Heilman intends to pursue Eighth Amendment claims based on the

alleged denial of out-of-cell exercise from March 2010 to March 2011. Plaintiff may not change

the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George v.

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

Plaintiff Heilman is also hereby informed of the following legal standards. In order to

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297

F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless

the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged rights deprivation, as

there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. That is,

plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional

conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Because

respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff must plead that each

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

Constitution.” Id. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to allege facts to state a plausible claim for

relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual

punishment where he or she deprives a prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). To state such an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must allege facts showing that (1)

the defendant prison official’s conduct deprived him or her of the minimal civilized measure of

life’s necessities and (2) that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s

5

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 5 of 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

health or safety. Id. at 834.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. Permissive joinder of the named plaintiffs in this action is denied. With the exception

of Thomas Heilman, all other plaintiffs – Rocky Bundesen, Wayne Shaver, Andre Supek,

Monroe Cooper, Dewitt Williams, Curtis Powell, Anthony Arrington, David Habig, and Gus

Lavierierre – are dismissed from this action

2. Plaintiff Heilman’s August 3, 2011 motion for a court order to permit plaintiffs to

meet is denied. 

3. Plaintiff Heilman’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

4. Plaintiff Heilman must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All

payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

5. Plaintiff Heilman’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The

amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First

Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in a this action being

dismissed.

Dated: November 8, 2011.

6

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/09/11 Page 6 of 6