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

JOHN W. LYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00426-JSC 

ORER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Dkt. No. 7

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against a variety of city and county government employees and the 

agencies where they work, as well as several hospitals and clinics.1 Plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the 

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

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. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (ECF No. 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

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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 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, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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).

LEGAL CLAIMS

The complaint contains a number of improperly joined claims. The federal rules on 

joinder are straightforward. “A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party 

claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing 

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). When, as here, there are multiple defendants, they may be joined in 

one action only “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 any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in 

the action.” Id. at 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that “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). "Unrelated claims 

against different defendants belong in different suits." Id. "A buckshot complaint that would be 

rejected if filed by a free person – say, a suit complaining that A defrauded plaintiff, B defamed 

him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different 
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

transactions – should be rejected if filed by a prisoner." Id. 

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims of malicious prosecution by the San Mateo County

District Attorney’s Office, improper arrest and obstruction of a criminal complaint by police 

officers in Menlo Park and San Jose, assault at a hospital, insufficient medical treatment for a 

variety of conditions and misuse of medical information by employees of the Palo Alto Medical 

Foundation, Stanford University Medical Center and the San Mateo County Hospital, ineffective 

assistance of counsel by his defense attorneys; and interference with mail by employees of the San 

Mateo County Jail.

2

 These claims arise out of many different and unrelated incidents. He names 

approximately seven different Defendants, and the body of his complaint asserts unlawful actions 

by numerous additional individuals and entities. He has also filed seven lengthy letters 

recounting additional violations of his rights by still others. Indeed, his complaint and letters set 

forth a lengthy narrative that appears to catalogue every incident he finds objectionable over the 

course of several months. Moreover, Plaintiff does not list his claims in any kind of coherent 

manner, but instead simply asserts a variety of constitutional violations in the course of recounting 

his convoluted narrative. As alleged, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction, 

occurrence or series of occurrences, and do not involve a common question of law or fact. 

Plaintiff may not assert a grab-bag of unrelated claims against different defendants, and this is 

precisely what he has done. Accordingly, the Court finds the claims and Defendants improperly 

joined.

This Court cannot simply strike certain claims that are not properly joined because it 

cannot be discerned which of the many claims Plaintiff may wish to keep and which he wants to 

omit. Thus, instead of dismissing certain claims and Defendants, the Court will dismiss the 

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. In his amended 

complaint, 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. Or he may bring multiple claims against a single defendant. Claims 

 

2

Plaintiff also alleges theft by his mother, although he does not name her as a defendant.
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

arising from unrelated incidents against different defendants must be alleged in separate 

complaints filed in separate cases. Plaintiff will not be given another opportunity to cure these 

deficiencies after the amended complaint ordered below; if the deficiencies are not cured in the 

amended complaint, this case will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended 

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

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 17-0426 JSC 

(PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by 

reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to 

amend within the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of 

this action. 

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he 

may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is 

filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED until a proper complaint has 

been filed and the circumstances of the case require the assistance of counsel for Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge