France v. Bloomfield

Background

Michael R. France, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. The court separately granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

France alleged that officials unfairly placed him in segregation for five and a half weeks in December 2019 while investigating a fight at San Quentin State Prison. He also alleged that he was moved to Pelican Bay State Prison, that officials spread false information about him that endangered his life at San Quentin, and that he was later returned to segregation for unrelated reasons. He further alleged interference with his court case and legal mail, and asserted that the officials acted because of personal dislike of him.

Court’s Analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint. Under that review, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under Section 1983, a complaint must allege both a violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state law.

The court found that France’s complaint presented a confusing and apparently self-contradictory account. It did not separately identify and number his claims, specify which defendant was responsible for each claim, identify the federal right involved in each claim, or clearly state where, when, and by whom each alleged violation occurred. The court concluded that it was therefore impossible to determine which claims France was bringing against which defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. France was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days that corrected the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the caption in the order, include the case number, and contain the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original, France had to include all claims he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.

The order stated that failure to amend within the required time and in the required manner would result in dismissal of the case. It also warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.