affirming dismissal of complaint that 22 was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal of complaint that 22 was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”
- finding defendants not named in amended complaint are no longer defendants
- prison official’s failure 25 to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may be basis for liability
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 D’ANDRE SMITH, Case No. 22-cv-07200-AMO (PR)
10 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
11 v.
12 OFFICER SUSAKI, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14 I. INTRODUCTION
15 Plaintiff D’Andre Smith, who is currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, filed a
16 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself. He alleges constitutional
17 violations at Santa Rita Jail (“SRJ”) where he was previously incarcerated. On November 17,
18 2023, the Court reviewed Smith’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the
19 complaint with leave to amend within twenty-eight days, with various instructions to correct
20 certain deficiencies. The Court provided Smith with the rules regarding joinder of defendants as
21 well as other various pleading requirements. Dkt. 14. The Court also granted Smith leave to
22 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 13.
23 Smith has since filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 15), which the Court now reviews under
24 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
25 Venue is proper in this judicial district because the events giving rise to the claim are
26 alleged to have occurred at SRJ, which is located herein. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Smith names
27 the following defendants from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office: Officers Middlebrook and
1 Susaki.1 Dkt. 15 at 1.2 Smith seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.
2 For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES Smith’s amended complaint with
3 leave to amend. Smith may file a second amended complaint that complies with the necessary
4 pleading requirements.
5 II. DISCUSSION
6 A. Standard of Review
7 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks
8 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
9 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims
10 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek
11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
12 Pleadings submitted by self-represented plaintiffs must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
13 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
15 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
16 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.
17 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Further, liability may be imposed on an individual defendant if the
18 plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected
19 right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d
20 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning
21 of section 1983 if they engage in an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or
22 fails to perform an act which they are legally required to undertake, that causes the deprivation of
23 which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436,
24
1 Certain defendants named in the original complaint, Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and
25
Valley Care Hospital, are not included as named defendants in the amended complaint, see Dkt. 15
at 2, and the claims against these defendants are accordingly DISMISSED, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
26
963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding defendants not named in amended complaint are no
longer defendants).
27
1 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a prison official’s failure to intervene to prevent Eighth
2 Amendment violation may be basis for liability). The inquiry into causation must be
3 individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts
4 or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.
5 A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal
6 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
7 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego,
8 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). A supervisor therefore generally
9 “is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or
10 directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List,
11 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “‘Supervisory liability is imposed against a supervisory
12 official in [their] individual capacity for [their] own culpable action or inaction in the training,
13 supervision, or control of [their] subordinates, for [their] acquiescence in the constitutional
14 deprivations of which the complaint is made, or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous
15 indifference to the rights of others.’” Preschooler II v. Davis, 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007)
16 (citations omitted). Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under section
17 1983. Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.
18 Finally, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint set
19 forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
20 Additionally, Rule 8(e) requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.”
21 See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that
22 was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). While the federal
23 rules require brevity in pleading, a complaint nevertheless must be sufficient to give the
24 defendants “fair notice” of the claim and the “grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus,
25 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted). A complaint that fails to state the
26 specific acts of the defendant that violated the plaintiff’s rights fails to meet the notice
27 requirements of Rule 8(a). See Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir.
B. Legal Claims
1
In response to the Court’s November 17, 2023 Order directing Smith to indicate whether
2
he is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, see Dkt. 14 at 4-5, Smith’s amended complaint
3
indicates he is a convicted prisoner, see Dkt. 15 at 1.
4
In reviewing the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint, the Court notes
5
that Smith does not clearly set out information regarding how his claims and the named defendants
6
are properly joined. See Dkt. 15 at 2-3. Smith’s amended complaint asserts unrelated claims
7
against different defendants. See id. As the Court previously notified Smith after reviewing his
8
original complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20 provides,
9
All persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if there is
10 asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right
to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of
11 transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common
to all defendants will arise in the action.
12
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (emphasis added). Rule 20(a) requires that a plaintiff cannot assert unrelated
14 claims against different defendants. In its November 17, 2023 Order, the Court instructed Smith
15 that he may only allege claims that (a) rise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
16 transactions or occurrences and (b) present questions of law or fact common to all defendants
17 named therein. Dkt. 14 at 6-7. The Court further instructed that claims that do not satisfy Rule
18 20(a) must be alleged in separate complaints filed in separate actions. See id. at 7.
19 In his amended complaint, Smith again repeats the same joinder errors as in his original
20 complaint. See Dkt. 15 at 2-3. There does not appear to be any commonality of right to relief
21 arising out of the following claims: Claim 1 – in 2021 his teeth were chipped during dental service
22 by unknown dental staff; Claim 2 – after an attorney visit on an unknown date, he was strip-
23 searched by Defendant Susaki in front of others; Claim 3 – sometime between November to
24 December 2021, when Defendant Middlebrook was on laundry exchange duty, Smith’s socks
25 contained “a pair of pan[t]ies inside”; and Claim 4 – sometime between April and June 2022,
26 unknown medical personnel from Valley Care Hospital flipped Smith while taking x-rays of his
27 stomach and pushed handcuffs into his mouth and caused his teeth to be chipped. Id. Smith
1 the instant action, this Court will provide Smith with one further attempt to determine himself on
2 which of the four listed claims he wishes to proceed in this suit. Therefore, the Court
3 DISMISSES the amended complaint with leave to amend, providing Smith with one further
4 opportunity to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) that only includes properly joined
5 defendants and claims.
6 The Court again reminds Smith that in filing his SAC, he should also comply with the
7 appropriate rules regarding civil complaints. Rule 8(d) requires that each averment of a pleading
8 be “simple, concise, and direct,” and may be the basis for dismissal. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
9 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complain that was “argumentative, prolix,
10 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).
11 In his SAC, Smith must provide a short and plain and separate statement regarding each
12 claim: the specifics regarding the mistreatment he suffered, how it violated his constitutional
13 rights, whether he suffered any injury as a result, and the conduct of each individual defendant that
14 he asserts is responsible for a constitutional violation. Smith must specifically identify what each
15 named defendant did or did not do in order to state a claim with regard to each separate claim.
16 While Smith may attach exhibits in support of his claims, he must identify how each applies to his
17 claims.
18 Smith must also establish legal liability of each person for the claimed violation of his
19 rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if Smith can show
20 that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer, 844
21 F.2d at 634. A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section
22 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an
23 act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains.
24 See id.; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison official’s failure
25 to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may be basis for liability). Sweeping
26 conclusory allegations will not suffice; Smith must instead “set forth specific facts as to each
27 individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634.
1 claim listing each defendant’s actions regarding that claim is preferable. Smith should state his
2 claims simply and need not present a lengthy history unrelated to the actions he complains about.
3 The SAC should comply with Rule 8 and provides a brief and coherent recitation of his claims
4 regarding only those defendants who are properly joined. Smith must also prove that he exhausted
5 all of his claims against each defendant before his filed this action.
6 In sum, because it appears possible that Smith may be able to correct the aforementioned
7 deficiencies, the Court DISMISSES his amended complaint with leave to amend to correct such
8 deficiencies.
9 III. CONCLUSION
10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
11 1. Defendants Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and Valley Care Hospital are
12 not included as named defendants in the amended complaint, see Dkt. 15 at 2,3 and the claims
13 against these defendants are DISMISSED.
14 2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above.
15 The Court repeats its instructions on how to properly amend his claims, which is taken from its
16 November 17, 2023 Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend, see Dkt. 14, without certain
17 instructions that are no longer relevant.
18 Smith’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to give him the
19 opportunity to file a simple, concise and direct SAC which:
20 a. States clearly and simply each claim he seeks to bring in federal court as
21 required under Rule 8, and he should:
22
i. Set forth each claim in a separate numbered paragraph;
23
ii. Identify each defendant and the specific action or actions
24 each defendant took, or failed to take, that allegedly
caused the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and
25
iii. Identify the injury resulting from each claim;
26
27
1 b. Explains how he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to each
2 claim as against each defendant before he filed this action;
3 c. Alleges only those claims that are properly joined under Rule 20(a)
4 (concerning joinder of claims and defendants) or, stated differently, because the plaintiff may not
5 list everything that has happened to him at SRJ that he finds objectionable, the Amended
6 Complaint may only allege claims that:
7
i. Arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
8 transactions or occurrences; and
9 ii. Present questions of law or fact common to all defendants;
10 d. States specifically how each defendant is directly linked to the plaintiff’s
11 claims;
12 e. Identifies the specific jail officials involved in the alleged constitutional
13 violations, and describes how their actions violated his constitutional rights; and
14 f. Names specific hospital workers, describes how their actions violated his
15 constitutional rights, and specifies if they are government actors or private parties.
16 3. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, the plaintiff shall file
17 his SAC as set forth above.
18 The plaintiff must use the attached civil rights form, write the case number for this
19 action—Case No. 22-cv-07200-AMO (PR)—on the form, clearly label the complaint “Second
20 Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form. Because the SAC completely
21 replaces the original and amended complaints, the plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
22 wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S.
23 915 (1992). He may not incorporate material from either the original or amended complaints by
24 reference. If the plaintiff wishes to attach any additional pages to the civil rights form, he shall
25 maintain the same format as the form, i.e., answer only the questions asked in the “Exhaustion of
26 Administrative Remedies” section without including a narrative explanation of each grievance
27 filed. Smith’s failure to file his SAC by the twenty-eight-day deadline or to correct the
1 prejudice.
2 4. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. The plaintiff must keep the
3 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely
4 || fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address
5 || changes while an action is pending must file a notice of change of address promptly, specifying
6 || the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when:
7 (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable,
8 and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the
9 || pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).
10 5. The Clerk of the Court shall send the plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form
11 along with his copy of this Order.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 13 || Dated: July 15, 2024
14 -
Mracek Pach =
ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN
= 16 United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28