McCullom v. Unknown

Background

Kevin Lee McCullom, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed documents treated as an attempt to begin a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint was the operative complaint. It named the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, the Sheriff of Contra Costa County, officers at Santa Rita Jail, employees at Napa State Hospital, and other individuals. McCullom also listed several other prisoners as plaintiffs and titled the pleading a class action.

The complaint asserted claims involving alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, an improper arrest warrant, and malicious prosecution; inadequate medical care for HIV at Santa Rita Jail; and ineffective assistance of counsel by a public defender. McCullom sought damages for some claims and requested that “Federal monitors” be placed in county offices and superior court buildings.

Class certification

The court treated the class-action language as a request for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It denied that request because a person representing himself in a case cannot adequately represent and protect the interests of a class. The court ordered that McCullom proceed as the sole plaintiff and that the other listed plaintiffs be removed from the action. The court stated that those individuals could pursue their own claims by filing separate actions.

Problems with the claims

The court found that the amended complaint combined unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. It explained that multiple claims may be brought against one opposing party, but unrelated claims against different defendants generally belong in separate suits. The court specifically found that claims challenging the lawfulness of McCullom’s conviction were not related to claims about his medical treatment or other conditions of confinement.

The court also explained the rule from Heck v. Humphrey: a Section 1983 damages claim based on an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment generally cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, invalidated, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court stated that McCullom could pursue such damages claims only if he could show that the conviction had been invalidated. Otherwise, the claims he could pursue in this action were limited to claims concerning medical treatment at Santa Rita Jail. Even if he could show that the conviction had been invalidated, he had to choose between pursuing the conviction-related claims and the medical-treatment claims in this action; claims he did not pursue could be brought separately if they were not barred by that rule.

Finally, the court stated that placing “Federal monitors” in government offices and court buildings was not a form of relief available through a Section 1983 action. It identified damages, injunctions, and declaratory relief as available types of remedies.

Disposition

The court denied McCullom’s request for class certification. It dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and gave him 28 days from the filing of the order to submit a second amended complaint. The new complaint had to use the required caption and case number, include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” and answer all questions on the court form if that form was used. The second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.