(PC) Langston v. Gamoly ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER SHANE LANGSTON, No. 2:16-CV-2361-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GAMOLY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1). 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 The Court initially addressed plaintiff’s complaint in a screening order. See ECF 7 No. 11. In that order, the Court summarized plaintiff’s allegations as follows: 8 Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Gamoly violated his eighth amendment rights to personal safety. Specifically, Plaintiff contends on 9 January 1, 2016 (and on prior dates), he informed Dr. Gamoly that “due to a rape case, he had enemy and safety concerns and needed protect[ive] 10 custody.” Plaintiff alleges that due to Dr. Gamoly’s deliberate indifference and failure to act on his concerns, Plaintiff was beaten on February 2, 11 2016, and February 3, 2016, resulting in damage to his face and left eye. Plaintiff states he was treated for his injuries to his head and eye. Plaintiff 12 further states that his safety concerns, voiced to Dr. Gamoly, are supported by Sargent Corona and CCT Brown of the Department of Corrections. 13 Plaintiff also contends that he was subsequently provided “protection on sensitive need yard.” Additionally, Plaintiff states that the “defendants” 14 have violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. 15 Id. at 2-3. 16 As to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims, the Court determined that plaintiff states a cognizable 17 claim against defendant Gamoly. See id. at 4. As to the remaining defendants, the Court stated: 18 However, because there are no facts related to Defendants Blackford, Roy Dollarhide, Nyrene Clark, Mier, or Fox, they are not 19 proper defendants and thus any claim against them must be dismissed. If Plaintiff wishes to allege additional facts related to any defendant(s) other 20 than Dr. Gamoly, he must file an amended complaint realleging the factual allegations against Dr. Gamoly and including additional factual allegations 21 against the other defendants. 22 Id. 23 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a first amended complaint and 24 cautioned as follows: 25 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claim against defendant Gamoly, if no amended complaint is 26 filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and recommendations that the remaining defendants be dismissed, as well as 27 such further orders as are necessary for service of process as to defendant 28 / / / □□□ 2. AY LV EAINT RAIVINS RUC IO er OY VM VI 1 Gamoly. 2 Id. at 5. 3 | To date, plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint, appearing to elect instead to proceed on 4 | the original complaint against defendant Gamoly only. Accordingly, the Court will recommend 5 | dismissal of all other defendants and, by separate order, will direct service of process on 6 | defendant Gamoly. 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Blackford, Dollarhide, g | Clark, Mier, and Fox be dismissed as defendants to this action, which shall proceed against 9g | defendant Gamoly only. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 14 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 15 | Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: June 17, 2020 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28