Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05508/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05508-4/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

DWIGHT A. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05508-YGR (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND; AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

THE COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF 

WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 

FORM

In an Order filed January 29, 2015, the Court reviewed the complaint in the instant pro se

civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, a state prisoner who has been granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. The Court dismissed the complaint, finding that Plaintiff had failed to link certain 

Defendants—prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and Pleasant Valley State 

Prison (“PVSP”)—adequately to his identifiable injuries. The Court also found that many of 

Plaintiff’s claims appeared to be unrelated, unexhausted, and improperly joined Defendants under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20(a).

1

 The Court also dismissed with leave to amend 

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Secretary Jeffrey Beard because Plaintiff had failed to link this particular defendant to his claims 

of constitutional violations at SVSP or to allege supervisory liability properly.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to the remaining SVSP 

defendants 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;

ii. Identify each SVSP defendant and the specific action or actions 

 

1

The Court dismissed the improperly joined PVSP defendants and the claims against them 

(that took place from December 2010 through April 2012). Dkt. 7 at 3-4. The dismissal was 

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing separate actions asserting those claims in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California, which is the proper venue for claims based on 

acts and omissions at PVSP. Id. at 4.

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 6
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

each SVSP 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 SVSP defendant before he filed this action;

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

(concerning joinder of claims and Defendants) or, stated differently, because 

Plaintiff may not list everything that has happened to him over a two-year period 

in prison that he finds objectionable, the Amended Complaint 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 SVSP defendants; 

d. Does not make conclusory allegations linking each SVSP defendant by 

listing them as having “direct involvement” to his claims without specifying how 

each SVSP defendant was linked through their actions;

e. Does not name any SVSP 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; and 

f. Does not name Doe Defendants. 

Dkt. 7 at 9-10.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, in which he seeks 

monetary damages and injunctive relief based on alleged injuries caused by twenty-five SVSP 

defendants between 2012 and 2014, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at SVSP. Plaintiff claims that 

the named Defendants:

engaged upon a pattern of behaviors and acts of discrimination that resulted in 

physical injury to Plaintiff, as well as acts of assault, intimidation, and deprivation 

of basic life needs. The above included but was not limited to the disruption and 

intercepting of my United States Postal Mail product, Inmate Appeals, and denial 

of due process. Numerous instances of Civil Rights Violations include [violations 

of] the 1st, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Dkt. 17 at 3.2 Plaintiff claims that he “came to SVSP using a wheelchair” in April 2012. Id. at 8, 

 

2

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 6
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

21. He proceeds to recount more specific complaints regarding, for example: grievances regarding 

his Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) evaluation in October 2012 (id. at 8); failure to 

respond to his complaints of “cardiac distress[s]” on April 14, 2013 (id.); threats to his safety on 

August 20, 2013 (id. at 9); placement in a cell without “ADA handrails” in September 2013 as 

well as deliberate indifference to health and safety needs resulting from such a placement (id. at 

10-11); falsification of a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) dated January 1, 2014 (id. at 11); 

excessive force on March 9, 2014 (id. at 11-12); deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs from April 2012 through April 2013 and resulting supervisory liability claims (id. at 12-13); 

failure to respond to his medical needs on March 1, 2013 (id. at 13-14); denial to due process 

rights stemming from the handling of RVR no. A14-01-003 in 2014 (id. at 14), inmate appeal log 

no. SVSP-13-02052 in 2013 (id. at 15), and inmate appeal log no. SVSP-14-00966 in 2014 (id. at 

15-16); failure to process mail and inmate appeals (id. at 16); and, finally, multiple supervisory 

liability claims (id. at 16-18). These various grievances cannot serve the basis of one complaint in 

federal court.

As noted, in its January 29, 2105 Order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the 

Court explained to Plaintiff that he cannot proceed with a complaint containing unrelated claims or 

misjoined defendants. In the Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff again alleges the 

aforementioned multiple sets of claims against various named Defendants, specifically, claims 

against SVSP defendants for events that transpired when Plaintiff was incarcerated there between 

2012 and 2014. The Court again finds that many of these claims are unrelated and improperly 

joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Rule 20(a) provides that all persons may be 

joined in one action as defendants if “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 if “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will 

arise in the action.” As the Court previously found, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint concerns 

several different incidents that may not be connected. 

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave 

to amend. Plaintiff is hereby granted one more opportunity to amend his complaint to state 

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 6
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

cognizable claims for relief concerning the events that transpired when he was incarcerated at 

SVSP. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is again reminded that he 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. Plaintiff must choose what claims he wants to pursue that meet the joinder requirements. 

Plaintiff must also follow the original requirements for amending his complaint outlined in the 

Court’s January 29, 2015 Order, which will be reiterated below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to 

give him the opportunity to file a simple, concise and direct Second Amended Complaint 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;

ii. Identify each SVSP defendant and the specific action or actions 

each SVSP 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 SVSP defendant before he filed this action;

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

(concerning joinder of claims and Defendants) or, stated differently, because Plaintiff may not list 

everything that has happened to him over a two-year period in prison that he finds objectionable, 

the Amended Complaint 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 SVSP defendants; 

d. Does not make conclusory allegations linking each SVSP defendant by 

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 6
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

listing them as having “direct involvement” to his claims without specifying how each SVSP 

defendant was linked through their actions;

e. Does not name any SVSP 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; and 

f. Does not name Doe Defendants. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the Second Amended Complaint will supersede the original

and amended complaints. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original 

complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in the Second Amended Complaint will no 

longer be defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 

U.S. 915 (1992).

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

Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Plaintiff must use the attached civil rights form, 

write the case number for this action—Case No. C 14-5508 YGR (PR)—on the form, clearly label 

the complaint “Second Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form. Because the 

Second Amended Complaint completely replaces the original and amended complaints, Plaintiff 

must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See id. He may not incorporate material 

from 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 Administrative Remedies” section without including a 

narrative explanation of each grievance filed. Plaintiff’s failure to file his Second Amended 

Complaint by the twenty-eight-day deadline or to correct the aforementioned deficiencies 

outlined above will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

4. 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 promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 6
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

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). 

5. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with a 

copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

January 12, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-05508-YGR Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 6