The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHAEL JAMES HICKS, No. 2:25-cv-1234 DAD CSK P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 T.BZOSKIE, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two motions to amend are before the Court.
19 I. PLAINTIFF’S CURRENT ALLEGATIONS
20 In screening plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court found that plaintiff adequately stated
21 potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Dr. T. Broskie, Associate
22 Warden J. Garry, CCII T. Heng, and Dr. A. Scrubbs, all employed at California Medical Facility,
23 based on their intentional interference with plaintiff’s serious medical needs, and against
24 defendant S. O’Connor, employed at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), based on S.
25 O’Connor’s failure to call for medical help sooner, after which plaintiff suffered another stroke.
26 (ECF Nos. 6, 17.)
27 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
28 Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 25, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On December 16, 2025,
1 defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
2 administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (ECF No. 31.) The motion to dismiss has not
3 yet been finally resolved.
4 On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Request to Amend
5 Complaint.” (ECF No. 50.) On July 6, 2026, plaintiff filed a second motion to amend,
6 accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 51.)
7 III. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO AMEND
8 On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed his first motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 50.)
9 Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a
10 prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma
11 pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended
12 complaint, the Court is unable to evaluate it. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is denied without
13 prejudice.
14 IV. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND
15 On July 6, 2026, plaintiff filed a second motion to amend and provided a proposed
16 amended complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant, Wiggins, a
17 correctional counselor I at MCSP, based on incidents that took place from May 5, 2026, to the
18 present. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2026, he was transferred back to MCSP at
19 the EOP1 level of care, despite being medically classified as “specialized outpatient - medium
20 intensity nursing” due to plaintiff’s cardio arterial disease with vascular stents in the left carotid
21 artery. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states he often has transient ischemic attack (“TIA”) symptoms
22 requiring repeated emergency department hospital admissions. (Id.) On June 26, 2026, plaintiff
23 claims he was reclassified by his treatment team to CCCMS. (Id.)
24 In his proposed amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he asked putative defendant
25 Wiggins to refer plaintiff back to the CDCR headquarters’ Health Care Placement Oversight
26
1 CDCR’s Mental Health Services Delivery System Program Guide provides four levels of
27 mental health care services: Correctional Clinical Case Management System (“CCCMS”);
Enhanced Outpatient (“EOP”); Mental Health Crisis Bed (“MHCB”) and inpatient hospital care.
28 Coleman v. Brown, 2013 WL 6491529, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).
1 Program (“HCPOP”) unit so that plaintiff can be housed at CMF or Stockton because plaintiff
2 was no longer assigned the EOP level of care. Wiggins refused plaintiff’s request, informing
3 plaintiff he must wait for his next annual classification review. (ECF No. 51 at 16.) Plaintiff
4 explained that plaintiff suffers from cardiovascular issues and that he was currently medically
5 classified as specialized outpatient-medium intensity nursing, and that Wiggins’ denial delayed
6 plaintiff’s medical care and placement. (Id.) Wiggins responded that due to plaintiff’s
7 classification score and RVR history, he would never be qualified for placement in a center
8 institution regardless of his medical condition. (Id.)
9 Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is deficient because it fails to set forth the relief
10 he seeks. In addition, plaintiff’s claim against putative defendant Wiggins differs from those
11 raised in the original complaint because the new putative claim did not arise from the same
12 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences. A plaintiff may properly assert
13 multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. In addition, a plaintiff may join
14 multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
15 severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
16 or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all
17 defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims against different
18 defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
19 Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim,
20 multiple defendant] suit produce[s]. George, 507 F.3d at 607.
21 The proposed new claim against putative defendant Wiggins is unrelated to plaintiff’s
22 claims against defendants Dr. A. Scrubb at CMF and S. O’Connor at MCSP because the new
23 claim does not concern specific medical treatment or a failure to promptly notify medical staff
24 about plaintiff’s urgent medical needs. As to defendants Dr. T. Broskie, Associate Warden J.
25 Garry, and CCII T. Heng, all employed at CMF, plaintiff alleged their intentional interference
26 with plaintiff’s serious medical needs by lowering his level of care and depriving him of the
27 specialized outpatient care due to his medical classification for medium intensity nursing care
28 violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. In the proposed amended complaint, plaintiff
1 | wanted to be referred to the HCPOP unit for possible transfer to CMF or Stockton, based on his
2 | current medical classification as specialized outpatient-medium intensity nursing. (ECF No. 51 at
3 || 15-16.) Despite Wiggins’ alleged statement that plaintiff “would never be qualified” for such
4 | housing, plaintiff does not allege that Wiggins was attempting to reduce or withdraw that medical
5 || classification as alleged in the original complaint. Thus, plaintiffs putative claims against
6 || Wiggins should not be brought in this action, but should be raised in a different lawsuit.
7 Finally, due to the pending motion to dismiss, plaintiff's motion to amend is premature.
8 | Plaintiff should not renew any motion to amend, if appropriate, until after final resolution of the
9 || pending motion to dismiss, including the district court’s decision on this Court’s findings and
10 || recommendations.
V. CONCLUSION
12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 50) is DENIED without prejudice.
14 2. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 51) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff
15 shall not renew his motion to amend, if appropriate, until after resolution of the
16 pending motion to dismiss, including the district court’s decision on this Court’s
17 findings and recommendations.
18
19 | Dated: July 14, 2026 A aA
Aan Spe |
CHI SOO KIM
71 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22 || hhick24ev1234.mta
23
24
25
26
27
28