1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ) KAREEN ANDERSON, ) Case No. EDCV 21-2673-JLS (JEM) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. ) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 14 ) LEAVE TO AMEND B.O.P., et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 On December 23, 2020, Kareen Anderson (“Plaintiff”), federal prisoner proceeding 18 pro se, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six 19 Unknown Agents,

(1970) (“Bivens”). On July 29, 2021, the District Court 20 issued an order denying Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and 21 discharging an order to show cause it had issued regarding lack of subject matter 22 jurisdiction. Plaintiff has now submitted the necessary paperwork and the initial partial filing 23 fee, and the Court has granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis. The 24 Complaint is now ready for screening. 25 SCREENING STANDARDS 26 In accordance with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the 27 Court must screen the Complaint to determine whether the action: (1) is frivolous or 28 1 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 2 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). This screening is governed by the following standards: 3 A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two 4 reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has 5 alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 6

(9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on 7 which relief may be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in 8 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States,

Plaintiff has 9 now submitted the necessary paperwork and the initial partial filing fee, and the Court has 10 granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “the 11 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v.

U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint 13 may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of 14 Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982). 15 Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive 16 dismissal, a plaintiff must provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 17 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18

(2007) (rejecting the traditional “no set of facts” standard set forth in 19 Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). The complaint must contain factual allegations 20 sufficient to rise above the “speculative level,” Twombly,

, or the merely 21 possible or conceivable.

. 22 Simply put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 23 plausible on its face." Twombly,

. A claim has facial plausibility when the 24 complaint presents enough facts “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 25 liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). This standard is not a probability 26 requirement, but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 27 unlawfully.”

A complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with liability stops 28 1 In a pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be construed liberally to afford 2 plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept,

, 3 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that the deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, 4 pro se litigants are generally entitled to a notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an 5 opportunity to amend prior to the dismissal of an action. Id. at 623. Only if it is absolutely 6 clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment should the complaint be 7 dismissed without leave to amend. Id.; Weilburg v. Shapiro,

(9th Cir. 8 2007). 9 After careful review and consideration of the Complaint under the relevant standards 10 and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Complaint must be 11 DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 12 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT 13 At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in 14 Victorville, California (“FCC Victorville”). (Complaint at 2.)1 He names the Bureau of 15 Prisons (“BOP”), Warden Pliers, Food Service Supervisors Bently and Ruda, and Chaplain 16 Chasse as Defendants. 17 Plaintiff alleges the following: 18 Claim One: Defendant Chasse, who knows Plaintiff is Jewish, violated plaintiff’s First 19 Amendment rights by refusing to provide Plaintiff with a kosher diet, matzah, or tefillin for 20 prayers. (Id. at 2.) 21 Claim Two: Food Service Supervisors Bently and Ruda violated Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment rights by continuously denying Plaintiff a non-meat, non-dairy kosher diet. 23 Plaintiff submitted proof that he was approved for religious diet participation and that he 24 suffered from physical problems from meat and dairy products. (Id. at 3.) Prison medical 25 personnel attempted to get Bently and Ruda to provide Plaintiff with a non-meat, non-dairy 26 27 28 1 diet, but they refused. This caused Plaintiff to suffer various maladies, including stomach 2 pains, headaches, constipation, groin pain, acid reflux, gastritis, and so forth. (Id. at 3.) 3 Claim Three: Defendants Bently and Ruda violated the Health Insurance Portability 4 and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by requiring prison medical personnel to provide them with 5 Plaintiff’s medical records and conduct additional medical procedures before providing a 6 non-meat, non-dairy diet. (Id. at 3-4.) 7 Claim Four: The BOP has established a “no trace complaint system” for “holdover 8 inmates,” which violates Plaintiff’s due process rights. (Id. at 4-5.) Pursuant to this policy, 9 holdover inmates such as Plaintiff are not given BP8-12 forms on which to file inmate 10 complaints. Rather, they are given “cop out” forms, which “do not come with copy papers 11 attached.” Thus, “there’s no way to prove that an inmate exhausted all remedies if they are 12 done away with by staff members.” Plaintiff has personally been denied BP8-12 forms, has 13 been forced to use cop out forms, and has had many complaints disappear “with no trace or 14 proof that they existed.” (Id. at 5.) 15 Claim Five: Warden Pliers does not allow holdover inmates such as Plaintiff to 16 participate in prison programs, access the law library, fully access medical and mental 17 health services, or readily receive faith based services. (Id. at 6.) 18 Claim Six: The conditions of confinement at FCC Victorville, specifically with respect 19 to COVID-19 exposure, pose a significant risk to Plaintiff’s health and safety. (Id. at 7-11.) 20 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. (Id. at 11.) 21 DISCUSSION 22 I. The Complaint Violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) and 20(a)(2) 23 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to assert “as many claims as it 24 has against an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), but does not provide for unrelated 25 claims against different defendants to be raised in the same action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants in the same action only 27 if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with 28 1 occurrences,” and there is a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” “Thus 2 multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not 3 be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 4 defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007). 5 Here, Plaintiff asserts unrelated claims against different defendants or groups of 6 defendants: (1) claims against Defendant Chasse for failure to provide him with various 7 items necessary to practice his religion; (2) claims against Defendants Bently and Ruda for 8 failure to provide him with a non-meat, non-dairy diet and violation of his HIPAA rights for 9 attempting to gain additional medical information to support his request for a non-meat, non- 10 dairy diet; (3) claims against unnamed BOP officials for applying different standards to 11 complaints filed by holdover inmates; (4) claims against Warden Pliers for preventing 12 holdover inmates from fully participating in and accessing various prison programs and 13 resources; and (5) claims against Warden Pliers regarding the conditions of confinement at 14 FCC Victorville that pose a risk to Plaintiff’s health and safety with respect to exposure to 15 COVID-19. 16 Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff continues to assert unrelated claims against different 17 defendants, they cannot be contained in the same action. If Plaintiff files an amended 18 complaint, he must choose which defendant or group of defendants he wishes to pursue 19 claims against in this action. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint and continues to raise 20 unrelated claims against different defendants, the Court will recommend dismissal of the 21 unrelated claims. 22 II. Plaintiff’s Claims for Injunctive Relief are Moot 23 Plaintiff seeks various forms of prospective injunctive relief regarding the policies and 24 procedures at FCC Victorville. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at FCC Victorville. Thus, 25 his requests for injunctive relief are moot. See Johnson v. Moore,

(9th 26 Cir. 1991). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should refrain from 27 including claims for injunctive relief based on policies and procedures at FCC Victorville. 28 1 III. The Complaint Fails to State an Equal Protection Claim 2 In Claims Four and Five, Plaintiff alleges that Warden Pliers and unnamed BOP 3 officials violated his right to equal protection by subjecting him and other holdover inmates 4 to different policies and procedures than those applied to regular inmates. (Complaint at 4- 5 7.) 6 The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is essentially a direction that 7 all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne 8 Living Center,

(1985). A plaintiff can establish an equal protection claim 9 either by showing that he was intentionally discriminated against based on his membership 10 in a protected class, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2001), or 11 by showing that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a 12 rational basis for the difference in treatment, see Village of Willowbrook v. Olech,

(2000); Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agriculture,

(2008). 14 Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that he is a member of a protected class, 15 as holdover inmates do not qualify as a protected class for equal protection purposes. See 16 City of Cleburne,

; see also Heller v. Doe by Doe,

, 321 17 (1993). Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that holdover inmates and regular 18 inmates are similarly situated individuals. He also has not alleged facts demonstrating that 19 holdover inmates and regular inmates were intentionally treated differently without a rational 20 basis for the difference in treatment. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would 21 support an equal protection claim. 22 ************* 23 For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 24 AMEND. 25 If Plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First Amended 26 Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, which remedies the deficiencies 27 discussed above. 28 1 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it should: (1) bear the docket 2 number assigned in this case; (2) be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; (3) be filled out 3 exactly in accordance with the directions on the form; and (4) be complete in and of itself 4 without reference to the previous complaints or any other pleading, attachment, or 5 document. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District of California 6 civil rights complaint form, which Plaintiff must fill out completely and resubmit. 7 Plaintiff is advised that he should not assert claims for which he lacks factual and 8 legal support. Rather, he should only assert a particular claim if he can truthfully allege 9 facts that would demonstrate a constitutional violation under the standards set forth above. 10 Plaintiff is admonished that, if he fails to file a First Amended Complaint by the 11 deadline set herein, the Court may recommend that this action be dismissed for 12 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. 13 14 15 DATED: October 4, 2021 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28