McClintock v. Valencia

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants John Scott McClintock leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assesses the statutory filing fee. The court finds potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against G. Valencia, L. Cantu, and T. Cooper, while dismissing claims against the remaining defendants with leave to amend based on pleading deficiencies and improper joinder. The order provides plaintiff with the option to proceed against the three identified defendants or file a second amended complaint, and includes a notice of election form.

Holdings

1. For purposes of § 1915A screening, the amended complaint stated potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against Valencia, L. Cantu, and T. Cooper.
2. The claims against the remaining defendants were improperly joined because they arose from different incidents involving different defendants and did not satisfy the transaction-or-occurrence and common-question requirements for permissive joinder.
3. The dismissed claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and McClintock was given thirty days either to file a second amended complaint asserting related, personally supported claims or to proceed against the three defendants whose claims passed screening.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against Valencia, L. Cantu, and T. Cooper.
2. Whether the claims against the remaining defendants were improperly joined because they arose from unrelated incidents involving different defendants.
3. Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Disposition

other