Johnson v. Tilton

Background

Matthew Johnson, an inmate at San Francisco County Jail, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named Captain Tilton, Sergeant Calloway, Deputy Ng, Deputy Gutierrez, Deputy Murpley, and Deputy Coldoronie, identified as San Francisco Police Department officials. It described events from November 26, 2022, through February 3, 2023, and generally referred to retaliation and police brutality. The complaint did not specify how the alleged actions violated the United States Constitution or federal law.

The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state law.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because Johnson did not connect specific acts to specific constitutional or federal-law violations. The court also said it was unclear whether all of the alleged violations could be brought in one case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, claims against multiple defendants must arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and share a common legal or factual question.

The court gave examples of incidents that appeared unrelated: an alleged strip search and placement in a dirty cell involving Deputy Murpley on November 26, 2022, and an allegation that Deputy Ng called Johnson a jailhouse informant on January 9, 2023. The court said such incidents might need to be pursued in separate actions. For each claim in an amended complaint, Johnson was directed to identify the defendant involved, the constitutional provision allegedly violated, the date and time, and what happened.

Other Requests

The court denied Johnson’s requests for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Those requests sought restrictions on transporting, housing, handling legal mail, discussing his cases, and interacting with him. The court found that there was no operative complaint and that it was unclear whether the requested relief was related to claims that could properly be pursued in this action. The denial was without prejudice to seeking appropriate injunctive relief after filing a complaint that states claims the court recognizes as legally actionable.

The court denied Johnson’s requests for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It found that he had not shown exceptional circumstances because, despite his incarceration and housing placement, he had been able to describe his claims and file numerous pleadings. The court also denied his request for assistance gathering evidence, explaining that it could not gather evidence for him.

The court denied as moot Johnson’s requests to amend or supplement the complaint because the court had already granted leave to amend. It directed him to include all claims and defendants in one amended complaint and not to amend piecemeal. The court also denied his request for entry of default because defendants had not been served and therefore did not yet have an obligation to answer or otherwise defend.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend and gave Johnson 28 days from the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number specified in the order, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and replace the earlier complaint. Failure to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. Judge Beeler also ordered the clerk to send Johnson two copies of the court’s complaint form.