1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY J ROBLEDO, Case No. 20-cv-09134-WHO

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. 9 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Defendant 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Anthony Robledo alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated 15 by officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) and California Institute for Men 16 (“CIM”), executives at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 17 (“CDCR”), and a court-appointed federal receiver. His

complaint 18 containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to

1915A(a). 20 Robledo names more than a dozen defendants without tying each defendant to a 21 wrongful act. Robledo also pleads unrelated claims, which is impermissible. He will be 22 given leave to amend to correct these deficiencies. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 2 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 3 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 6 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting 8 Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 9 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 10 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754–55 11 (9th Cir. 1994). 12 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 13 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 14 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 16 DISCUSSION 17 Robledo alleges that officials at SQSP and CIM, executives at CDCR, and the 18 federal receiver were all deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (See 19 generally, Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).) Specifically, Robledo names the following 20 defendants: 21 • Executives at CDCR: Kathleen Allison, Director; Ralph Diaz, Secretary; 22 Ron Davis, Associate Director of Reception Centers; Dr. R. Steven Tharratt, 23 Director of CDCR Medical Services; Dr. Joseph Bick, Director of California 24 Corrections Healthcare Services; 25 • At SQSP: Ron Broomfield, Acting Warden; Dr. A. Pachynski, Chief Medical 26 Officer; Clarence Cryer, Healthcare Chief Executive Director; J. Arnold, 27 Captain; M. Bloise, Lieutenant; B. Maub, Lieutenant; B. Dutton, Sergeant; 1 2 • At CIM: Dean Borders, Warden; Dr. L. Escobell, Chief Medical Officer; 3 • Clark Kelso, the Federal Receiver appointed by the Plata/Coleman court; 4 and 5 • Gavin Newsom, Governor of the State of California. 6 Robledo alleges that in March 2020 officials at SQSP failed to provide free tests for 7 Covid-19 and adequate personal protective equipment (“PPE”) to all staff and inmates (see 8 id. at 19); that in May 2020 defendants transferred inmates from CIM to SQSP without 9 adequate testing, which resulted in an outbreak of Covid-19 at SQSP (see id. at 8); that 10 defendants ignored warnings from local health officials and did not re-test or isolate the 11 CIM inmates after the transfer (see id. at 16); and that Robledo experienced and continues 12 to experience symptoms of Covid-19 following these events (see id. at 9). Robledo also 13 challenges the removal of toilets from the prison yard for one year (id. at 7-8); a lack of 14 outdoor exercise for a period of time before August 2020, and insufficient exercise of “90 15 minutes daily” thereafter (id. at 9, 21); the “effective[] stop[page]” of medical and dental 16 care (id. at 10); the lack of breakfast on a specific day (id. at 22); the lack of a hose to 17 clean the shower area (id. at 7); and the fact that implementing social distancing rules 18 made shower lines longer (id. at 17). Robledo seeks compensation for his injuries, and an 19 “injunction ordering [SQSP to] attend to ‘all’ of plaintiff’s medical and dental concerns.” 20 (Id. at 23.) 21 As to Robledo’s request for injunctive relief, this request is plainly unrelated to the 22 gravamen of this action. Robledo does not connect the need for dental care to officials’ 23 actions regarding Covid-19, nor does he allege that prison officials failed to provide him 24 with medical care. (See generally, Complaint.) Indeed, Robledo does not even name any 25 defendants who were directly involved in his medical care. (See id.) Robledo may not 26 bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules require that claims be based on 27 “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a 1 George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different 2 defendants belong in different suits, and prisoners must pay the required filing fees under 3 the PRLA). For the same reason, Robledo cannot in this lawsuit bring his claims regarding 4 toilets, showers, outdoor exercise, and the lack of breakfast on a single day. 5 Robledo also has failed to tie every defendant to a wrongful act. For example, he 6 does not allege that defendants Arnold, Bloise, Maub, Dutton, Avila, France, Teixeira, or 7 Newsom took any actions which harmed Robledo. If he chooses to amend his claims, 8 Robledo must identify the wrongs committed by these defendants. 9 Robledo’s allegations regarding the transfer of inmates from CIM to SQSP are a 10 different matter, and likely state a cognizable claim for violation of the Eighth 11 Amendment. On amendment, Robledo is encouraged to focus his efforts on perfecting his 12 cognizable claims. For example, Robledo’s allegations that defendants “surely” or 13 “obviously” knew of the risks of transferring inmates, or “should have been right on top of 14 this” (id. at 9) are too conclusory to establish that any of the defendants had the requisite 15 mental state. Instead, in addition to tying each and every defendant to a wrongful act, 16 Robledo should explain how each defendant had the required mental state of deliberate 17 indifference. Neither negligence nor gross negligence is actionable under § 1983 in the 18 prison context. See Farmer v. Brennan,

, 835-36 & n.4 (1994); Wood v. 19 Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990) (gross negligence insufficient to state 20 claim for denial of medical needs to prisoner). An accident or evaluative mistake does not 21 reach the required mental state. See Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976). 22 Robledo is reminded that in a § 1983 action a state official can only be liable for his 23 or her own misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Under no 24 circumstances can a supervisor or superior be liable under § 1983 solely because he or she 25 is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List,

, 1045 26 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 CONCLUSION 1 || July 16,2021. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 2 || used in this order (20-9134 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3 || on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s form. Because 4 || an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include 5 || in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants 6 || he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). He may 7 || not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 8 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with all these instructions may 9 || result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to 10 || prosecute. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. |) Dated: May 18, 2021 . MQe □ : LIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28