Yocom v. Foss

Background

Michael Alan Yocom, who was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials failed to provide adequate treatment for serious medical needs and asserted Eighth Amendment claims involving deliberate indifference and torture, as well as a First Amendment claim concerning the handling of grievances.

The amended complaint named Tina Foss, J. Clark Kelso, SVSP Chief Medical Officer Rivera, and a medical grievance coordinator identified as Jane Doe. It also attached a nine-page narrative about medical care at several correctional institutions and referred to additional officials.

Screening and Deficiencies

The court granted the defendants’ request to screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires courts to review lawsuits brought by incarcerated people against governmental entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court found that the amended complaint did not satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement of the claims. It said the narrative was vague and meandering and that the court would not identify claims or defendants from the attached narrative. The court instructed Yocom that a new complaint must identify, for each claim, the defendant who allegedly committed the violation, the constitutional provision involved, and the specific acts or failures to act.

The court dismissed the claims concerning the processing of grievances with prejudice and without leave to amend. It explained that denying a prison grievance generally does not make an official personally liable for the underlying constitutional violation and that incarcerated people do not have a constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal procedure.

The court also found that the allegations against Foss and Rivera were conclusory and did not explain what serious medical need existed, what treatment was required but not provided, or why their actions were not reasonable steps to address the alleged medical need. The court noted that the amended complaint described hospitalizations, testing, and examinations by specialists and physicians, and that the allegations appeared to reflect a disagreement over medical treatment, which ordinarily does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

The court further ruled that Yocom had improperly joined claims arising from separate events at different institutions and involving different individuals. It stated that claims concerning treatment at California Healthcare Facility and North Kern State Prison should be filed in the Eastern District of California, while claims in this case had to satisfy the federal rules governing related transactions and common legal or factual questions.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Yocom to file a second amended complaint within 28 days, using the case caption and number specified in the order and including every claim and defendant he wished to pursue. The court stated that the new complaint would replace the earlier complaints and could not incorporate them by reference. It warned that failure to file a proper second amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order terminated the defendants’ screening request, ECF No. 36. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.