Taylor v. Hammoudeh

Background

Kenneth Lee Taylor, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. His amended complaint named more than 30 defendants, most of whom were prison officials at San Quentin State Prison.

Taylor challenged his alleged 2009 validation as a member or affiliate of the Black Guerrilla Family security-threat group, his nearly seven years of isolation in secured housing units, and continuing punishment allegedly connected to that validation. He also alleged retaliation, interference with his right to seek review of his grievances, and deliberate indifference. He requested court orders and monetary damages.

An earlier court had dismissed, without leave to amend, the claims concerning the 2019 denial of Taylor’s participation in a prison program at the California Health Care Facility. Those claims against S. Hammoudeh, Romero, Eldridge, and Liu were terminated as of October 21, 2020. The remaining claims were transferred to the Northern District of California because the alleged events at issue occurred at San Quentin State Prison.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Claims 1 through 4 under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires a court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court first addressed timeliness. California’s limitations period for these civil-rights claims was two years, with two additional years of tolling for an incarcerated plaintiff under the provisions discussed in the order. The action was received by the Eastern District of California on December 23, 2019, about ten years after the alleged 2009 validation and six years after the limitations period appeared to have expired. The court therefore ordered Taylor to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as untimely.

The court also found pleading problems. The amended complaint did not adequately connect Claims 2 through 4 to particular defendants. The court explained that Taylor needed to identify each defendant, describe what that person did or failed to do, and provide relevant dates, places, and facts showing personal involvement. Simply referring to defendants as a group was insufficient, and a supervisor could not be held liable solely because of a supervisory relationship.

The court could not determine whether Taylor had exhausted the prison grievance process for each claim before filing suit. Taylor alleged that he had exhausted all four claims but did not address exhaustion separately for each claim or attach grievance forms. The court therefore required any amended complaint to explain exhaustion for each claim and defendant, or to explain if administrative remedies were unavailable.

The court also could not determine whether all claims and defendants were properly joined. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, claims against multiple defendants must arise from the same transaction or related events and involve a common legal or factual question. The court warned that improperly joined claims would be dismissed.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk to terminate all claims against Hammoudeh, Romero, Eldridge, and Liu as of October 21, 2020, pursuant to the earlier court order. It ordered Taylor, within 28 days, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for being filed beyond the limitations period.

If Taylor established that the claims were timely, the court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. Taylor could file a second amended complaint within 28 days that clearly stated each claim, identified each defendant’s specific conduct and the resulting injury, addressed exhaustion, complied with the rules governing joinder, and avoided unsupported group or supervisory allegations. The order stated that failure to respond or file a compliant second amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also directed the Clerk to send Taylor a blank civil-rights complaint form.