Iseli v. All of the ALEG

Background

Branden Iseli filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously screened and dismissed his initial complaint, while giving detailed instructions for amending it. Iseli then filed a First Amended Complaint and a Second Amended Complaint.

The court screened the amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court found that Iseli did not follow its earlier instructions and did not state a claim that could proceed.

First, the court had instructed Iseli to explain whether he exhausted the available administrative grievance process before filing suit. The court found that this remained unclear. In the First Amended Complaint, Iseli invoked the Fifth Amendment concerning exhaustion. In the Second Amended Complaint, he both asserted that he had exhausted his claims and asserted that he had not, while saying that discovery would explain why.

Second, the court had instructed Iseli to identify the defendants who harmed him and explain what each defendant did. The First Amended Complaint named “All of the ALEG” without explaining what that name referred to, whether the defendant acted under state law, or what wrongdoing the defendant committed. The Second Amended Complaint named the State of California, “Fact by Discovery,” and Judge Gonzalez Rogers, but did not explain how those defendants harmed him. The court concluded that Iseli had not identified specific acts violating his rights.

Third, the court found that the amended complaints did not clearly describe the claims or provide facts supporting a constitutional or statutory violation. The First Amended Complaint referred generally to property damages, pain and suffering, due process, and COVID-19-related relief, but did not identify a specific wrong or supporting facts.

The court separately found that the Second Amended Complaint’s claims were not legally cognizable. Its first claim concerned a fire in Crescent City while Iseli was incarcerated nearby. The court stated that a claim under § 1983 cannot be based on a random and unauthorized deprivation of property, such as one caused by a fire. The second claim referred generally to COVID-19 but did not identify a specific injury or explain how the virus affected Iseli. The third claim concerned a fire in Paradise, California, but did not explain how Iseli was harmed by an event nearly 300 miles from where he was incarcerated or how any defendant could be held responsible. Finally, Iseli asked this court to review an Eastern District of California decision denying his petition challenging his detention. The court held that it had no authority to review another federal district court’s decision and stated that an appeal was the available remedy for disagreement with that decision.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because Iseli had already received an opportunity and detailed instructions to amend but still had not stated a cognizable claim, the court concluded that further amendment would be futile. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend and with prejudice, and ordered the clerk to close the file. Judge P. Casey Pitt signed the order.