Cole v. McFadden-Jensen

Background

Stein Cole filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against more than 30 defendants employed at Mule Creek State Prison, California Training Facility-Soledad, and Salinas Valley State Prison. He asserted claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment.

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities or employees. At that stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Reasons for dismissal

The court found that claims involving Mule Creek State Prison concerned a prison outside the Northern District of California. It dismissed all Mule Creek defendants and claims without prejudice to Cole filing suit against them in the Eastern District of California, where Mule Creek is located.

The court also found that many remaining claims involved unrelated events at different prisons and actions by different people. Rule 20(a)(2) requires claims against multiple defendants to arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and to involve a common legal or factual question. The court directed Cole to choose between pursuing claims against the California Training Facility-Soledad defendants or claims against the Salinas Valley defendants.

The court separately found that Cole’s religious-exercise claims did not state a claim because he did not identify the religion he followed or explain how his religious practice had been restricted. The court dismissed his requests for injunctions against the California Training Facility-Soledad and Salinas Valley defendants without leave to amend, finding those requests moot because Cole was then housed at Mule Creek.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by March 29, 2021. The amended complaint had to use the required case caption and court form, include all claims and defendants Cole wished to pursue, and not incorporate earlier complaints by reference. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. Judge William H. Orrick issued the order.