Opinion
3:22-cv-00537-ART-CSD
02-03-2023
DANTE H. PATTISON, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, et al., Defendants.
SCREENING ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 12, 1-3, 1-4). Plaintiff has also submitted a Motion for Leave of Court to File Complaint Exceeding Page Limit, as well as a Motion in Limine. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 5). The matter of the filing fee will be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and addresses his motions.
I. SCREENING STANDARD
Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an incarcerated person 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, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated person's claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id.
Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be dismissed sua sponte if that person's claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's Complaint is 63 pages long and includes approximately 200 pages of exhibits. (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). In the Complaint, Plaintiff names 50 Defendants, asserts eight claims concerning a range of misconduct that began in 2015 and continues to this day, and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 1-2 at 3-64).
The Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend because it does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or District of Nevada General Order 2021-05. The Court now advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to facilitate the filing of a properly formatted amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to comply with these rules when drafting and filing his amended complaint may result in this action being dismissed.
A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 10, 18, and 20
Plaintiff's Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. Notably, “[c]ourts consistently conclude that a complaint which lump[s] together . . . multiple defendants in one broad allegation fails to satisfy [the] notice requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).” Karkanen v. California, No. 17-cv-06967-YGR, 2018 WL 3820916, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2018) (collecting cases).
Plaintiff's Complaint violates Rule 8 because it repeatedly lumps Defendants together, making it difficult to identify the persons responsible for the alleged misconduct. For example, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” “deliberately fabricated evidence” in two civil-rights lawsuits. (ECF No. 1-2 at 25). Likewise, Plaintiff asserts that “NDOC Defendants made unauthorized disclosures of [his] private confidential mental health psychiatric records . . . without first seeking [his] express authorization.” (Id. at 30). As noted above, Plaintiff names 50 Defendants. Thus, allegations that attribute misconduct to “Defendants” or “NDOC Defendants” do not give Defendants fair notice of the nature of Plaintiff's claims. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he should follow the directions in the form complaint and “[d]escribe exactly what each specific defendant (by name) did to violate [his] rights.”
In addition, the purpose of a complaint is not to list every single fact relating to a plaintiff's claims. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his Complaint, he must set forth his claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner to meet the requirements of Rule 8.
A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Rule 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same defendant. Rule 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[a] buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person-say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions-should be rejected if filed by a prisoner”). These rules are intended not only to avoid the confusion that arises from bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that inmates pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and do not circumvent the PLRA's three-strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Claims may not be joined merely because they are based on the same type of constitutional violation. Plaintiff may not evade these requirements merely by alleging that he told the same person about the alleged constitutional violations or by making conclusory allegations that all the defendants are engaging in a conspiracy or campaign of harassment. Plaintiff also may not evade these requirements by including multiple causes of action in a part of the complaint form reserved for one claim.
B. Claims About Litigation Misconduct in Pending Lawsuit
Some of Plaintiff's claims concern alleged litigation misconduct by the Attorney General's Office in a pending civil-rights action-Pattison v. Sandoval, 3:20-cv-00287-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.). For example, Plaintiff alleges that “DAG Dorame and Defendants” sought to prevent him from obtaining “favorable ‘state of mind' documentary e-mail evidence” in Pattison by misrepresenting to the court that the NDOC had 273,000 emails related to him. (ECF No. 1-2 at 35-36). Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” fabricated evidence in Pattison by creating “falsified NDOC administrative proposed responses to prison grievances.” (Id. at 24-25). If Plaintiff believes that the defendants in Pattison engaged in litigation misconduct, he should raise those allegations in that action, for example by filing a motion for sanctions under Rule 11. He cannot litigate these issues in a new civil action. See Weber v. Jones, No. 8:13-cv-01040-GRA, 2013 WL 3328673, at *5 (D.S.C. July 2, 2013) (rejecting plaintiff's attempt to “[f]il[e] a new civil action about certain parties' alleged misconduct in a pending civil action before this court”).
C. Leave to Amend
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of the Complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that he wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. The amended complaint must also comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Plaintiff should file the amended complaint on this Court's approved form, and it must be entitled “First Amended Complaint.”
The Court notes that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, he will file the amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.
III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court also denies his Motion for Leave of Court to File Complaint Exceeding Page Limit. (ECF No. 1-1). Furthermore, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, which asks that the Court take into account Plaintiff's pro se status in adjudicating this action. (ECF No. 5). The Court is aware of its responsibilities toward pro se litigants, including the requirement to liberally construe their pleadings. Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that a decision on the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is deferred.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the Complaint (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4).
It is further ordered that the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice and with leave to amend.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File Complaint Exceeding Page Limit (ECF No. 1-1) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of his Complaint, as outlined in this order, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send to Plaintiff the approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, a copy of his Complaint (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4), and a copy of General Order 2021-05. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should use the approved form and he will write the words “First Amended” above the words “Civil Rights Complaint” in the caption.
It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint in a separate screening order. The screening process may take several months.
It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.