McCullom v. Still

Background

Kevin L. McCullom, a state prisoner confined at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violations of federal rights. He named Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern; medical officials Maria Luisita Magat, M.D., and Ramond Herr, M.D.; Alameda County Chief Probation Officer Wendy Still; several court-appointed attorneys; an expert witness; and a Napa State Hospital doctor.

McCullom alleged inadequate medical treatment, false arrest and false imprisonment in state criminal proceedings, inadequate representation, conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, problems with evidence, violations involving health information, police-database errors, unlawful surveillance, and other misconduct. He also referred to allegations from other lawsuits and said this case was joined to two other cases, both of which had been dismissed with leave to amend. The court treated the longer complaint filed at Docket No. 5 as the operative complaint. McCullom's request to proceed without prepaying filing fees was to be addressed in a separate order.

Court's analysis

Because McCullom was a prisoner seeking relief involving governmental actors, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court found that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts linking particular allegations to specific state actors, so the court could not identify a valid § 1983 claim. It also found that the complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds. The court described the complaint as incoherent, disorganized, and lacking legally viable claims, while noting that length alone is not enough to dismiss a complaint.

The court further found that the allegations were not obviously related. Under Rules 18 and 20, multiple claims may be joined in one action only under specified circumstances, including a connection among the claims, defendants, transactions, or common legal or factual questions. The court stated that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different lawsuits. It also noted that many allegations appeared duplicative of claims in at least two other lawsuits and that duplicative litigation may be dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Finally, the court said that references to criminal proceedings indicated that related damages claims might be barred by the rule recognized in Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a § 1983 plaintiff generally cannot recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated in one of the ways identified by the rule. The court did not make a final determination that the claims were barred on that basis.

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend. McCullom was given one opportunity to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint had to comply with Rules 8(a)(2), 18(a), and 20(a), include the case caption and case number, and state facts showing a plausible claim against each defendant. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case.

The order stated that failure to respond within the required time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The clerk was directed to provide McCullom with two copies of the court's complaint form and a copy of the order.