Cole v. McFadden-Jensen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEIN COLE, Case No. 20-cv-06400-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v.

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

R. MCFADDEN-JENSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Stein Cole’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before March 29, 2021. His allegations contain unrelated and factually insufficient claims against more than thirty defendants at three different prisons, one of which is outside this district. This is improper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In the amended complaint, Cole must decide which of his claims to pursue, as discussed below. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline, or a failure to comply in every respect with the instructions given in this order, likely will result in the dismissal of this suit and the entry of judgment in favor of defendants.

DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Cole raises claims against more than thirty defendants who are employed at three different prisons--Mule Creek State Prison, CTF-Soledad, and Salinas Valley State Prison. He raises claims under (i) the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for religious discrimination and retaliation; (ii) the Rehabilitation Act; (iii) the Americans With Disabilities Act, (iv) the Fourteenth Amendment; and (v) the Eighth Amendment.

Many of the alleged incidents occurred at Mule Creek State Prison, which is not in the Northern District. Accordingly, all Mule Creek defendants and claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Cole filing suit against these defendants in the Eastern District of California, where Mule Creek is located.

Many of Cole’s remaining claims are based on unrelated incidents occurring at different prisons (CTF-Soledad and Salinas Valley) by different persons. This is improper. He may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules require that claims be based on “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 1 || allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is closely related to the 2 || facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). As should be clear from that instruction, in 3 || the amended complaint Cole must choose to bring his claim(s) against either (4) the CTF- 4 || Soledad defendants or (ii) the Salinas Valley defendants.

5 His religious exercise claims are deficient for a separate reason. He has not 6 || described what religion he follows, or exactly how his exercise of this religion has been 7 || inhibited. It fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 8 For those reasons, Cole’s Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. I 9 || DISMISS without leave to amend his claims for injunctive relief against defendants at

CTF-Soledad and Salinas Valley. Because plaintiff is now housed at Mule Creek, injunctive relief claims at the other two prisons are moot.

CONCLUSION

13 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint in S 14 || accordance with the discussion above on or before.March 29, 2021. The amended

15 || complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (20-06400 a 16 || WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The 17 || amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s form. Because an amended 18 || complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes tosue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by reference.

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order likely will result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2021 | ( . MQe

.

ILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge