(PC) Hill v. El Dorado County Sheriff

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL ALAN DEAN HILL, No. 2:24-cv-2752 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is an El Dorado County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On December 20, 2024, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

22 The amended complaint violates joinder rules. Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against different defendants. Simply put, plaintiff cannot join claims against defendant B that are not sufficiently connected to those brought against defendant A. Vague allegations concerning conspiracy do not satisfy court rules regarding joinder of claims.

27 Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 5 For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must comply with applicable joinder rules and must not exceed 20 pages. In addition, plaintiff is provided the following guidance with respect to the contents of his second amended complaint: 9 1. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and a claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 11 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

13 2. In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 21 at 678. Essentially, in order to state a claim for a violation of federal law, plaintiff must point to facts suggesting a defendant caused plaintiff to suffer injury as the result of the denial of some federal right.

24 3. Prison officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are necessarily curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires a finding that “the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Id. at 532.

1 | The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional | goals for the conduct of which he complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).

3 Also, in order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must point to facts indicating a | causal connection between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Watison v. Carter, 668 | F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012).

6 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to || make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended | complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 17) is dismissed.

11 2. Plaintiff □□ granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended | complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended || Complaint.” Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result || in arecommendation that this action be dismissed.

17 | Dated: March 27, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a 18 CAROLYN K DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | 53 hill2752,join