Solorio v. Ducart

Background

Adrian Solorio filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution. He alleged that prison officials violated his constitutional rights during his earlier incarceration at Pelican Bay State Prison between 2016 and 2017. The allegations concerned denial of property, legal materials, and medical care; denial of Halal meals and alleged anti-Muslim discrimination; retaliation and mail censorship; and an alleged failure to refund money for missing canteen items. He also asserted failure-to-train allegations against some defendants.

The court had previously screened the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it with leave to amend, instructing Solorio to comply with the rules governing the joinder of claims and defendants. Solorio then filed an amended complaint naming eighteen defendants. The court reviewed that amended complaint under the same screening statute.

Reason for dismissal

The court concluded that the amended complaint again combined unrelated claims against different defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) allows defendants to be joined in one action only when the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and involve a common question of law or fact. The court found that Solorio’s claims did not appear to share the required common connection.

Because the court could not determine which of the improperly joined claims Solorio wanted to pursue in this action, it did not allow the amended complaint to proceed. It explained that claims that do not satisfy Rule 20(a) must be brought in separate lawsuits. The court also reminded Solorio that a new complaint must satisfy Rule 8 by stating claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner and must identify the conduct of each defendant, the injury caused, and the legal basis for each claim.

The court further instructed Solorio to explain whether he had exhausted available administrative remedies for each claim against each defendant, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), or whether those remedies were unavailable. It stated that supervisory liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation or a sufficient causal connection to it.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. The court allowed Solorio 28 days to file a second amended complaint using the required civil-rights form. That complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue, could not incorporate the earlier complaints by reference, and could include only properly joined claims and defendants.

The order stated that failing to file the second amended complaint within 28 days or failing to correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The clerk was ordered to send Solorio a blank civil-rights complaint form.