(PC) Cheatham v. Wan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARRY CHEATHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-00135-JDP 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 TOMMY WAN, et al., ECF No. 1 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on January 30, 2019, ECF No. 1, is before the court 19 for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that he has been sexually assaulted and 20 accosted in prison, sought single-cell status to prevent further attacks, and was denied that status. 21 The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim. We will give 22 plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 23 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS1 24 Plaintiff is an inmate at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in 25 Corcoran. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff names various employees of SATF as defendants in this 26 27 1 We draw the following facts from plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and accept them as true for 28 screening purposes. 1 action. Plaintiff alleges that he “had been sexually assaulted and accosted at another California 2 state prison” and informed “authorities” at SATF of that fact. Id. at 4. On November 17, 2016, 3 plaintiff “read a petition begging for and seeking single cell status” to a committee including 4 defendants Wan, Williams, Beltran, Doe 1, and Doe 2. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff’s request was denied. 5 See id. at 5. 6 Plaintiff also gives a laundry list of conclusory complaints regarding isolated incidents 7 over a three-year span at SATF. See, e.g., id. at 4 (asserting that on October 9, 2016, his mental 8 health doctor, defendant Romero “sabotaged” his efforts to seek “mental comfort and help”); id. 9 at 5 (alleging that on May 25, 2017, defendant Beltran threatened to place plaintiff in S.H.U.); id. 10 at 6 (complaining that his request to separate from his cellmate was denied by defendant Brainard 11 on May 4, 2018). 12 II. SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS 13 A district court must dismiss a case that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 14 upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 15 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 16 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 18 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 19 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 20 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 21 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 22 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 23 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011)). Instead, what 24 plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 25 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 26 (citations omitted). 27 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 28 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). However, the court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint 1 “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 2 which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 3 2017) (quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)). 4 Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by 5 federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To state 6 a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by 7 the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) show that the alleged deprivation was 8 committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 9 (1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he 10 does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which 11 he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 12 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 13 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. Linkage Requirement 16 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional or 17 other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. See Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 18 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009). To state a claim, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the 19 existence of a link, or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a 20 violation of his federal rights. See Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 21 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013). 22 Plaintiff fails to link many of the defendants to any specific action causing him harm. 23 Instead, his complaint repeatedly states that various defendants violated his rights, without 24 explaining what rights were violated or how the violations occurred. Plaintiff’s allegations must 25 demonstrate that each individual defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 26 See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of 27 factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. 28 Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 1 B. Improper Joinder of Unrelated Claims 2 Plaintiff’s complaint lists multiple unrelated claims. ECF No. 1 at 4-7. Multiple parties 3 may be joined as defendants in one action only if “any right to relief is asserted against them 4 jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, 5 occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and [ ] any question of law or fact common 6 to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Therefore, claims against 7 different parties may be joined together in one complaint only if the claims have similar factual 8 backgrounds and have common issues of law or fact. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350– 9 51 (9th Cir.1997). Plaintiff’s laundry list of unrelated claims cannot remain in a single complaint. 10 Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 11 C. Failure to Protect 12 The main issue raised in plaintiff’s complaint appears to be that he would like to be 13 housed in a single cell because he fears attack from other inmates. See ECF No. 1 at 4-5. 14 Liberally construed, these allegations may raise a claim for failure to protect. Prison officials 15 have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. See Farmer v. 16 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must 17 show first, that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; 18 and second, that a prison official knew of and was deliberately indifferent to this risk. See id. at 19 834. In this case, should plaintiff choose to amend, he must provide specific information 20 regarding his substantial risk of serious harm. While sexual assault is a serious harm, plaintiff has 21 not alleged facts to show that he is was at substantial risk of this serious harm at SATF. Plaintiff 22 will be given leave to amend. 23 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 24 We have screened plaintiff’s complaint and find that it fails to state a cognizable claim 25 against any defendant. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this 26 suit. As explained below, such an amended complaint would need to allege what each defendant 27 did and why each defendant’s actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. If plaintiff fails to 28 1 amend his complaint within thirty days, we will issue findings and recommendations that 2 plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 3 Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint,2 the amended complaint should be brief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what actions each named defendant took that deprived plaintiff 5 of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 6 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to 7 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 8 There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own 9 misconduct. See id. at 677. Plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated in 10 the deprivation of his rights. See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff should note that a short, 11 concise statement in which the allegations are ordered chronologically will help the court identify 12 his claims. Plaintiff should describe how each defendant wronged him, the circumstances 13 surrounding each of the claimed violations, and any harm he suffered. 14 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 15 the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 16 banc), and the amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior, 17 superseded pleading, see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the 18 original complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 19 original complaint, plaintiff must assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 20 sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 21 to the appropriate case number. 22 23 24 25 26 2 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims or new, 27 unrelated defendants in his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different 28 suits . . . .”). 1 Accordingly, within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must file a 2 | First Amended Complaint. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this 3 || action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° g 2 \ prssnnn —_ Dated: _ August 12, 2019 7 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 | No. 204 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28