Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650-6/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

MAURICE GODOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 23, 24

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint (Dkt. No. 24) is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, a 

restraining order, and partial summary judgment. Dkt. No. 23.

DISCUSSION

I. Screening Amended Complaint

A. Standard of Review

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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

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.” “Specific facts are not 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). “Although in 

order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . 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 essential 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. Procedural History

Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because, among other 

things, it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) in that it contained a wide 

variety of claims that happened over several years and at more than one prison, and named forty 

separate defendants. Plaintiff was instructed that in preparing an amended complaint, he could

only allege claims that (a) arose out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 

or occurrences, and (b) presented questions of law or fact common to all defendants named 

therein. Dkt. No. 9 at 2-3. The Court further instructed Plaintiff that claims arising out of events 

occurring at California Institute for Men (“CIM”) must be filed in the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California where CIM is located, and that claims arising out of events 

occurring at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) and/or Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

(“SATF”) must be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 

where MCSP and SATF are located. Finally, the Court dismissed all other plaintiffs except for 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

plaintiff Godoy from the action without prejudice to pursuing individual civil actions. Dkt. No. 9 

at 4. The Court declined to allow joinder of the numerous plaintiffs and their claims, and also 

declined to certify the plaintiffs as a class action. Dkt. No. 9 at 4-5.

C. Amended Complaint

The amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint. The 

amended complaint again fails to comply with Rule 20(a)(2) 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). Similar to the original complaint, the amended complaint includes a wide variety of 

claims which do not appear to arise out of the same occurrence, including: (1) retaliation for filing 

grievances; (2) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (3) unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement; (4) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (5) denial of access to 

the courts; (6) sexual assault; (7) false accusations; (8) deprivation of his property; (9) deliberate

indifference to inmate safety; and (10) conspiracy. The amended complaint indicates that these 

various violations happened over several years and at more than one prison, some of which are 

located in the venue of either the Eastern District of California or the Central District of 

California. The amended complaint names over thirty separate defendants, and again seeks to join 

other inmates as co-plaintiffs.

Because the amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint, 

the Court DISMISSES the amended complaint with leave to amend. The Court DENIES

plaintiff’s renewed request to add additional inmates as co-plaintiffs, for the same reasons as set 

forth in the Court’s January 29, 2019 order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. 

In preparing the second amended complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff as follows.

First, the second amended complaint must comply with Rule 20(a)(2). 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. 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

Plaintiff needs to choose the claims he wants to pursue that also meet the joinder 

requirements and present only those claims in this action. For example, plaintiff could choose 

to limit this action to only those claims that (1) arise out of the same event or set of events at San 

Quentin State Prison and (2) present a question of law or fact common to all the SQSP defendants. 

To pursue his other claims regarding events at other prisons or other events at SQSP, plaintiff 

must file separate individual actions, with each action challenging an event that arose out of his 

time at the specific prison. 

Second, the second amended complaint should comply with venue requirements. Pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), an action may be brought in either (1) the judicial district in which any 

defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; or (2)

the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred. Accordingly, as explained in the Court’s prior order of dismissal with leave to amend, 

claims arising out of events occurring at CIM or Lancaster State Prison must be filed in the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California where CIM and Lancaster State Prison 

are located, and claims arising out of events occurring at MCSP or SATF” must be filed in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California where MCSP and SATF are 

located. While plaintiff may have suffered numerous constitutional violations while incarcerated 

at California prisons, the Court will only grant relief with respect to events that happened within 

the Northern District of California.

Third, the Court reminds Plaintiff that he need only provide a brief statement of the facts 

that give rise to each legal claim. Plaintiff should refrain from describing constitutional violations 

suffered by other prisoners. In order to organize his second amended complaint, plaintiff may 

want to number each legal claim and, underneath that claim, name the defendant who committed 

the constitutional violation and briefly describe the facts that give rise to the legal claim. 

II. Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary Injunction, Restraining Order, and 

Partial Summary Judgment

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion seeking declaratory judgment, a preliminary 

injunction, a restraining order, and partial summary judgment for the following reasons.

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment regarding the liability of prison officials at CIM. 

Dkt. No. 23 at 10-13. The request for partial summary judgment is premature and must be denied 

without prejudice. As stated above, the Court is required to screen complaints in civil actions in 

which prisoners seek relief from governmental entities, officers or employees. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff has not yet filed a complaint that states cognizable constitutional claims, and 

service of Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been authorized. Should this action proceed beyond 

the screening stage, the Court will order service and set a schedule for discovery and dispositive 

motions. At this juncture, dispositive motions such as plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 

judgment are premature and should be denied. Generally the denial would be without prejudice to 

re-filing at the appropriate stage of this litigation. However, as discussed supra, claims arising out 

of events occurring at CIM must be filed in the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California where CIM is located. 

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering (1) defendants to immediately provide 

plaintiff with “any and all” appropriate medical assistance; (2) defendants to accommodate his 

ADA needs; (3) defendants to provide the necessary follow-up treatments for various health 

concerns; (4) certain CIM defendants to remove false RVRs or stay-away orders; (5) certain CIM 

defendants to transfer him to the sensitive need yards and to a single cell; and (6) the SATF 

warden to transfer him back to CIM where inter alia he will be closer to his family. Dkt. No. 23 

at 13-15. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order to ensure that he receives medical care and 

ADA accommodations. Id. at 16-19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure 

for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Prior to granting a preliminary injunction, notice to the 

adverse party is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary 

injunction cannot be decided until the parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral 

notice to the adverse party only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or 

by the verified complaint that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result” to the 

applicant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney 

certifies in writing “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Here, defendants have not been given notice and plaintiff has not 

shown that he has satisfied the elements to support an exception. In addition, plaintiff has not yet 

stated cognizable claims, and to the extent he seeks relief related to claims arising out of events 

that transpired at CIM, those claims must be filed in the Eastern District of California. 

Although plaintiff titled his motion as a motion for declaratory judgment, he does not 

specify in the motion what declaratory judgment is sought. If plaintiff generally seeks declaratory 

judgment as relief in this action, he may simply state that in his second amended complaint rather 

than filing a separate motion requesting declaratory judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 

1. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a declaratory judgment, a preliminary 

injunction, a restraining order, and partial summary judgment. Dkt. No. 23.

2. The Court DISMISSES the amended complaint with leave to amend. If plaintiff 

can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file a second amended complaint

within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The second amended complaint 

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 18-6650 HSG (PR)) and the 

words SECOND 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. An amended 

complaint completely replaces the previous complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by 

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

second amended complaint. Failure to file a proper amended complaint in the time provided 

will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. The Clerk shall 

include two copies of a blank complaint form with a copy of this order to plaintiff.

//

//

//

//

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 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

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 23 and 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/26/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 28 Filed 11/26/19 Page 7 of 7