# Gaxiola v. Borla > District Court, N.D. California · October 10, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076708 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** October 10, 2023 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076708 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH EMMANUEL GAXIOLA, Case No. 23-cv-02196-WHO (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING THE v. 9 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 10 E. BORLA, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Joseph Emmanuel Gaxiola alleges unrelated constitutional and statutory 15 claims against different defendants at Salinas Valley State Prison. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915A(a). 18 Gaxiola raises a number of unrelated claims against at least eleven defendants. 19 Because this falls afoul of federal pleading rules, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave 20 to file an amended complaint on or before November 20, 2023. Failure to file a proper 21 amended complaint by November 20, 2023, may result in dismissal of this action under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. I will rule on Gaxiola’s 23 motion for the appointment of counsel after I have reviewed his amended complaint. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 4 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 7 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 11 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 12 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 13 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 15 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 16 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 17 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 B. Legal Claims 19 In his complaint, Gaxiola alleges Eighth Amendment, due process, and Americans 20 With Disabilities Act (ADA) claims against at least eleven defendants at Salinas Valley 21 State Prison, including prison guards, medical staff, and grievance reviewers. The 22 allegations relate to a prison disciplinary action; a prison guard shutting off water during a 23 shower; retaliation; denial of medical treatment and equipment; and denial of transfer to 24 ADA housing and various ADA accommodations. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 1-36.) 25 Gaxiola’s claims are based on different incidents involving different defendants 26 over two years. This is improper. He may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal 27 pleading rules require that claims be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series 1 defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In his amended complaint, he must decide which 2 set of claims he wishes to pursue. He may then allege facts that give rise to that claim and 3 any other claim that is closely related to the facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). 4 In addition, Gaxiola may wish to consider the following when he amends his 5 complaint. His claims against grievance reviewers will be difficult to sustain. Mere 6 involvement in reviewing an inmate’s administrative grievance does not necessarily 7 demonstrate awareness of an alleged violation, or contribute to the underlying violation. 8 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “Only persons who cause or 9 participate in the violations are responsible.” Id. “Ruling against a prisoner on an 10 administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation.” Id. 11 By the same token, his claims against supervisors will be difficult to sustain. There 12 is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, which means that a supervisor cannot be 13 held simply for being a supervisor. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It 14 is not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the 15 defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the 16 violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, 17 supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them 18 are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the 19 supervisors’ personal involvement in their subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 20 U.S. at 675-83. 21 CONCLUSION 22 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 23 November 20, 2023. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 24 number used in this order (23-02196 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 25 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear 26 on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to him. Because an amended complaint 27 completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended 1 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate 2 || material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint 3 || by November 20, 2023, may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil 4 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 10, 2023 | ( . VQe ® 7 LLIAM H. ORRICK 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076708. Public record. Not legal advice.