(PC) Graves v. Magrini ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN GRAVES, No. 2:20-cv-0596-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ERIC MAGRINI, Sheriff, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 22 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 Screening Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 28 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 5 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 6 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 8 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 9 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 12 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 14 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. 16 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 22 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 Screening Order 24 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds 25 that the allegations are not sufficient to state a proper claim for relief. Plaintiff’s complaint 26 alleges that the administrative appeals process at the Shasta County Jail is inadequate. Plaintiff 27 complains that because the appeals are maintained on a computer tablet and subsequently printed 28 ///// 1 out, none of them are signed or authored by individual jail officials, resulting in a lack of 2 accountability and violations of his right to due process. 3 Plaintiff’s claims cannot proceed because there are no constitutional requirements 4 regarding how a grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th 5 Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoner’s claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his 6 appeals does not violate due process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement 7 to a specific prison grievance system). Thus, plaintiff may not impose liability on a defendant 8 simply because he played a role in processing plaintiff’s appeals or because the appeals process 9 was otherwise rendered unfair. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (an 10 administrative “grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive 11 right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the 12 procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment.” (internal quotations omitted)). 13 Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 14 Leave to Amend 15 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 16 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 17 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 18 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 19 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 20 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 22 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 23 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 24 multiple defendants. Id. 25 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 26 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 27 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 28 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 1 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 2 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 3 || 1967)). 4 Conclusion 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 7 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 8 in accordance with the notice to the Shasta County Sheriff filed concurrently 9 herewith; 10 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days from the 11 date of service of this order; and 12 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the 13 reasons stated herein. 14 | DATED: April 13, 2020. > Is / EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28