Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00291-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RUIZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0291-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing two nearly identical complaints, he has filed an application 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a request for 

appointment of counsel. 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

However, court records reflect that plaintiff has been designated a three-strikes litigant pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Johnson v. Sonoma Cnty. Main Adult Det. Facility, No. 14-cv05397-CW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49780 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015). An exception to the threestrikes rule exists “if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent 

danger of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint satisfies the imminent danger 

Case 2:20-cv-00291-JAM-JDP Document 12 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

exception. See ECF No. 1 at 24-25, 51 (alleging that after complaining that his doctor sexually 

harassed and assaulted him in July of 2019, he was not assigned a new doctor and the accused 

doctor has since refused to render any medical care to plaintiff, who suffers from numerous 

serious medical conditions, such as advanced degenerative disc disease, deep tissue blood clots, 

chest pains, shortness of breath, poor circulation, an umbilical hernia, arthritis, and twenty broken 

bones that never properly healed). Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted. By separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of 

plaintiff 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). 

Screening Standards 

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

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). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00291-JAM-JDP Document 12 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Screening Order 

In this case, plaintiff’s 80-page complaint reads as a laundry list of grievances concerning 

his conditions of confinement at the California Medical Facility. See ECF Nos. 1 & 10 

(complaining about inadequate medical care and disability accommodations, threats to his life 

from staff and inmates, discrimination, harassment, that he should not be housed at the same 

institution where his abusive ex-girlfriend works, being classified as a violent offender, 

interference with his mail, an entitlement to resentencing, inadequate access to the library, not 

being able to telephone his father, sexual assault, denial of a kosher diet, and denial of dental 

treatment). The complaint is plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring in a single action 

multiple, unrelated claims against multiple defendants. It is well settled that a claimant may not 

proceed with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: 

“The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as 

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 

party has against an opposing party.’ Thus 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). Plaintiff’s claims encompass discrete events 

involving separate defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. Indeed, each subset of 

allegations poses entirely separate questions – both legally and factually – from the others. 

Plaintiff’s complaints will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Case 2:20-cv-00291-JAM-JDP Document 12 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 

persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 

rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (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). Plaintiff may also 

include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 

“they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants. Id. 

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00291-JAM-JDP Document 12 Filed 04/10/20 Page 4 of 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 

5 

Request for Appointment of Counsel 

District courts may authorize the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil 

litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); 

Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional 

circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 

and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate 

his claims amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 1 & 8) is denied without 

prejudice; 

4. Plaintiff’s complaints (ECF Nos. 1 & 10) are dismissed with leave to amend 

within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and 

5. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 

action. 

DATED: April 10, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00291-JAM-JDP Document 12 Filed 04/10/20 Page 5 of 5