(PC) Thomas v. Davey, 1:16-cv-00925

Background

Plaintiff Edward Thomas, a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed multiple complaints alleging numerous constitutional violations at Corcoran State Prison; the third amended complaint is at issue.
The third amended complaint names over 50 individual defendants and asserts a wide array of claims (property deprivation, false disciplinary reports, due process violations, denial of transfers, First Amendment and mental-health-related claims, alleged conspiracy, etc.).
The district court screened prior complaints twice, dismissed with leave to amend, and provided detailed guidance on pleading and joinder rules; Plaintiff repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies.
The magistrate judge determined the third amended complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 (short, plain statement), 18 (joinder of claims), and 20 (joinder of parties) because it is prolix, conclusory, and joins unrelated claims/defendants.
The court found amendment futile given Plaintiff’s repeated failures and the history of the case, and applied the Ferdik factors (public interest in expeditious resolution, docket management, prejudice to defendants, policy favoring merits, availability of lesser sanctions) to conclude dismissal with prejudice is warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the third amended complaint complies with Rule 8 pleading requirements	Thomas presents numerous factual allegations across many incidents and contends they state constitutional violations	(Respondents implicitly argue) the complaint is overly long, conclusory, and fails to give fair notice	Court: complaint fails Rule 8; allegations are threadbare, conclusory, and not a short, plain statement
Whether unrelated claims/defendants may be joined under Rules 18 and 20	Thomas joined many claims and defendants in one action, asserting an overarching conspiracy and multiple discrete events	Defendants (and Court) contend claims arise from different transactions and lack common questions of law/fact, thus improper joinder	Court: claims are improperly joined; Rule 20/18 joinder requirements not satisfied
Whether allegations of a broad conspiracy suffice to permit joinder and survive screening	Thomas alleges a widespread conspiracy among >50 defendants to deprive him of rights	Defendants/ Court: bare conspiracy allegations without meeting-of-the-minds factual support are insufficient	Court: conspiracy claims are speculative and conclusory; do not state a plausible §1983 conspiracy claim
Whether leave to amend should be granted or dismissal with prejudice is appropriate	Thomas previously amended and argues he has described claims; implicitly seeks further opportunity	Court notes Plaintiff had multiple chances, specific guidance, and still failed to cure deficiencies; amendment would be futile and waste judicial resources	Court: dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate due to futility and repeated noncompliance

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: threadbare conclusions insufficient; factual plausibility required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely consistent with liability)
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment cannot cure defects)
Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) (standards on amendment and futility)
Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983) (futile amendments need not be permitted)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (factors for dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (prolix, confusing complaints prejudice defendants and courts)
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court may dismiss without leave where proposed amendments would not cure defects)
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (district courts’ discretion regarding amendments and pleading standards)