The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 EDWIN NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 25-cv-03008-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DISMISSING THE
v.
13 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
14 CRISTINA CORPUS, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18 Plaintiff Edwin Norberto Rodriguez alleges unrelated claims against different
19 defendants at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
20 containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
21 1915A(a).
22 Rodriguez raises a number of unrelated claims against multiple defendants.
23 Because this falls afoul of federal pleading rules, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave
24 to file an amended complaint on or before August 18, 2025. Failure to file a proper
25 amended complaint by August 18, 2025, may result in dismissal of this action under
26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
27 I will rule on Rodriguez’s motion for the appointment of counsel after I have
1 DISCUSSION
2 A. Standard of Review
3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
18 (9th Cir. 1994).
19 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
20 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
21 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
22 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
23 B. Legal Claims
24 Rodriguez alleges many unrelated claims: the use of excessive force, denial of
25 adequate medical care, denial of adequate mental health care, denial of meals, and the
26 issuance of a false disciplinary report. The events giving rise to these claims happened on
27 different days and were committed by different persons, many of them unnamed in the
1 Rodriguez may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules
2 require that claims be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
3 or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R.
4 Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In his amended complaint, he must decide which claim he wishes to
5 pursue. He may then allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is
6 closely related to the facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). Also, he must provide
7 the names of the persons involved.
8 Rodriguez should also be aware that naming the sheriff Cristine Corpus as a
9 defendant based on the fact of her being sheriff is insufficient. There is no respondeat
10 superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is
11 not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the defendants;
12 the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or
13 knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Defendants cannot be held
14 liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were integral
15 participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018).
16 Furthermore, supervisory defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the
17 allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not
18 “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their subordinates’
19 constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-83.
20 Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Because it is
21 unclear which claims, if any, will proceed, I will rule on Rodriguez’s motion for the
22 appointment of counsel when I review the amended complaint.
23 CONCLUSION
24 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before
25 August 18, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number
26 used in this order (25-03008 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED
27 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear
1 || completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended
2 || complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.
3 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate
4 || material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint
5 || by August 18, 2025 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
6 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 || Dated: July 8, 2025 .
9
M H. ORRIC
10 United States District Judge
11
a 12
13
©
15
16
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28