1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 20-cv-06112-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; v. 9 ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., MOTION 11 Defendants.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Daronta T. Lewis raises a series of unrelated claims in his 54-page 15 complaint against his former jailors at West County Detention Center in Richmond, 16 California.1 This is improper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). His complaint is DISMISSED 17 with leave to file an amended complaint on or before February 26, 2021. In the amended 18 complaint, Lewis must decide which of his claims to pursue, as discussed below. 19 The amended complaint should be no longer than 10 pages in total. Failure to file a 20 proper amended complaint by February 26, 2021, or failure to comply with all the 21 instructions given in this order, may result in the dismissal of this suit and the entry of 22 judgment in favor of defendants. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 5 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 6 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 8 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 9 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 10 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting 11 Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 12 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 13 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754-55 14 (9th Cir. 1994). 15 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 16 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 17 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 18 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 19 B. Legal Claims 20 Lewis alleges many unrelated claims against his former jailors at West County 21 Detention Center in Richmond, California. They are: (i) unclean and unsafe cells, claims 22 he wishes to bring as a class action; (ii) excessive force; (iii) denial of court access; (iv) 23 violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act; (v) due process and equal protection 24 violations; and (v) medical care claims. 25 Lewis may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules require 26 that claims be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 27 occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. 1 such as excessive force or denial of court access or denial of appropriate housing, for 2 example. He may then allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is 3 closely related to the facts involved, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 20(a)(2). 5 Furthermore, his claims cannot proceed as a class action because pro se prisoner- 6 plaintiffs cannot bring such suits. A layperson cannot adequately represent the interests of 7 a class. See McShane v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes 8 almost absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is imprisoned and 9 proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 1975). A 10 plaintiff’s privilege to appear in propria persona is a “privilege . . . personal to him. He has 11 no authority to appear as an attorney for others.” McShane,

, citing Russell 12 v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, Lewis can proceed pro se 13 here only on claims that his individual rights were violated. Permission to proceed as a 14 class action is DENIED. 15 MOTIONS 16 Lewis has filed a motion asking the Court to prevent the West County Detention 17 Facility (WCDF) from tampering with his mail. (Dkt. No. 6.) This motion is DENIED as 18 moot because he is no longer housed at WCDF. 19 CONCLUSION 20 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 21 February 26, 2021. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 22 number used in this order (20-06112 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 23 COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s 24 form. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Lewis 25 must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of 26 the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 27 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 1 || Lewis need not file any exhibits or declarations with the new complaint, having submitted 2 || many pages of exhibits and declarations with the prior complaint. If he states cognizable 3 || claims in the amended complaint, he will be allowed to file additional pages of material if 4 || necessary. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with all these instructions 5 || may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for 6 failure to prosecute. 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. . 8 Dated: January 5, 2021 \f CE ® ? WILLIAM H. ORRICK 10 United States District Judge 11 qa 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28