Pearline Jackson v. The State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of Pearline Jackson’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim and for noncompliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. The court concludes that the pleading is vague, conclusory, improperly joins unrelated claims and defendants, and seeks relief against entities protected by immunity or not subject to liability under § 1983 or Bivens. The Findings and Recommendations allow fourteen days for objections and recommend dismissal without further leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The first amended complaint failed to provide a short, plain, and intelligible statement showing that Plaintiff was entitled to relief because it was disjointed, vague, conclusory, and did not identify what each defendant allegedly did, when the conduct occurred, or how it violated Plaintiff's rights.
2. Plaintiff could not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. The claims concerning property, Social Security benefits, access to courts, medical care, and other matters were improperly joined.
3. The amended complaint failed to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 or Bivens because it did not identify specific individual conduct, alleged federal agencies and courts that were not proper § 1983 defendants, and relied on impermissible respondeat superior theories.
4. Plaintiff could not pursue claims for damages or injunctive relief against the State of California, CDCR, state prisons, state courts, or other state agencies because they are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment absent waiver or a valid congressional override.
5. Further leave to amend was not warranted because Plaintiff had already been informed of the pleading and legal deficiencies and had been unable to cure them in the first amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Whether the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims and defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
3. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a Bivens theory against the named defendants.
4. Whether the State of California, CDCR, state prisons, state courts, federal agencies, and federal courts were immune or not proper defendants.
5. Whether Plaintiff's allegations stated cognizable claims concerning failure to protect, medical care, verbal harassment, property loss, grievance processing, access to courts, housing, investigation, and injunctive relief.
6. Whether further leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

other