(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN DAVID ANDERSON, No. 2:20-cv-0246 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VANGERWEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants violated his rights in various ways, including by using 19 excessive force against him. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (ECF No. 7) and his complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth 21 below the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint 22 with leave to amend. 23 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(a). (ECF No. 7.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 26 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 27 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 28 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 1 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 2 forward it to the Clerk of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 3 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 4 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 5 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(b)(2). 7 SCREENING 8 I. Legal Standards 9 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 10 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 12 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 13 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 15 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 16 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 17 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 18 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 19 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 20 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 26 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 27 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 28 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 1 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 2 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 3 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 4 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 5 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 6 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 7 or other proper proceeding for redress. 8 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here, the defendants must act under color of federal law. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 9 389. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 10 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 11 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 12 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 13 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 14 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 15 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 16 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 17 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 18 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 19 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 20 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 21 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 22 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 23 II. Allegations in the Complaint 24 Plaintiff alleges the events giving rise to the claim occurred while he was incarcerated at 25 the Shasta County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff has named the following officers as 26 defendants in this action: (1) Vangerwen; (2) Jerkowitz; (3) Danis; (4) Reed; (5) SheyeAnne 27 Bailey; (6) Page; (7) Mason; (8) Brown; (9) Sieren Smith; (10) April Kammezel; (11) Brian Cole; 28 and (12) John Doe. (ECF No. 1, 3.) 1 Plaintiff has alleged several different defendants used excessive force against him on 2 several separate occasions. (Id. at 7-9.) He has also included allegations that his cast was taken 3 from him, his grievances were ignored, an officer attempted to coerce plaintiff to waive his right 4 to remain silent, and that the jail did not supply grievance forms with a section for American with 5 Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. (Id. at 8-14.) 6 III. Unrelated Claims Belong in Different Suits 7 At the outset, plaintiff is advised that he cannot bring unrelated claims against unrelated 8 parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 9 (7th Cir. 2011) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits and 10 complaints violating that principle should be rejected). While multiple claims against a single 11 party may be alleged in a single complaint, unrelated claims against different defendants must be 12 alleged in separate suits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under 13 Rule 18(a), prisoner improperly brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims against twenty- 14 four defendants). 15 Plaintiff may only bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim(s) 16 arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) 17 there are common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. 18 of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). As a practical matter, this means that claims 19 involving different parties cannot be joined together in one complaint if the facts giving rise to the 20 claims were not factually related in some way—that is, if there was not “similarity in the factual 21 background.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). General allegations are 22 not sufficient to constitute similarity when the specifics are different. Id. The fact that several of 23 plaintiff’s claims involve allegations of excessive force does not necessarily make claims related 24 for purposes of Rule 18(a). Id. at 1351. 25 In any amended complaint, plaintiff should chose one claim arising from common events 26 and containing common questions of law or fact. See George, 507 F.3d at 607 (“Unrelated claims 27 against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a 28 multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 1 required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 three the number of 2 frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.”) 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Alternatively, plaintiff may select a single defendant and bring as 4 many claims as he has against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). 5 The complaint contains allegations regarding several separate events that do not appear to 6 arise from common events or contain common questions of law or fact. Accordingly, the court 7 will dismiss the instant complaint with leave to amend. 8 IV. Amending the Complaint 9 In any amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he 10 complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, 11 the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. 12 Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s action 14 and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 15 Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 16 are not sufficient.” Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 17 Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 18 and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 19 to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 20 defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The 21 charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of 22 the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in 23 support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 25 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 26 R. Civ. P 10(b). The amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action 27 is brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It 28 must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons 1 who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional 2 right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional 3 right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally 4 required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 5 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 6 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 7 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 9 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 10 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 11 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 12 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 13 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 14 reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 15 prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 16 each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 17 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 18 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 19 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) are granted. 23 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 24 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order 26 to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 27 concurrently herewith. 28 //// MwA 2 EUV ESTING INI ED MVOC POI VOLE EN POY OM 1 3. The complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed. 2 4. Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended 3 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint 5 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First 6 Amended Complaint.” 7 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the civil rights complaint 8 form. 9 6. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 10 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 11 Dated: August 11, 2020 12 Mand» ORAH BARNES 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 Di Osten PssonelCiiL Rights/ndel246 sem 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28