Solorio v. Ducart

Background

Adrian Solorio, who was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution when the order was issued, filed a self-represented civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been incarcerated. The court was reviewing his Second Amended Complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted seven claims against about 20 prison employees. The claims concerned alleged property deprivation, denial of legal materials and interference with legal mail, inadequate medical care, interference with religious practices, retaliation involving appeals and family correspondence, and a failure to refund money for items that were not delivered.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the claims violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 because the alleged events occurred at different times, involved different conduct, and were not connected by common facts or law. The court had previously warned Solorio that unrelated claims against different defendants had to be brought in separate actions.

The court dismissed Claim 1, concerning the alleged deprivation of property, for failure to state a claim and without leave to amend. It explained that a random and unauthorized loss or destruction of property by a state employee generally does not support relief under § 1983 when an adequate state remedy is available, and it found that California provides such a remedy.

The court found that Claim 2, concerning the alleged deprivation of legal materials and inability to forward legal mail, did not adequately allege actual harm or explain how each defendant caused the alleged denial of access to the courts. The court also found that the allegations against Warden C. E. Ducart, Supervisor J. A. Nelson, and Teacher/Supervisor R. Wilson improperly relied on their supervisory positions rather than allegations of their personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Solorio was given 28 days to file a Third Amended Complaint addressing only Claim 2 against Librarian G. M. Cursey, C. E. Ducart, J. A. Nelson, and R. Wilson, and he was required to connect each defendant to specific conduct. Claim 1 was dismissed without leave to amend. All remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in separate state or federal actions. The court stated that failure to file the Third Amended Complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Judge Vonne Gonzalez Rogers also directed the Clerk to send Solorio a blank civil-rights form and a copy of the order.