(PC) Kanongataa v. Jones ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GRAME KALI KANONGATAA, No. 2:20-cv-1116-JAM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 19 Application 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 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following: On the evening of September 30, 2015, a fire 25 broke out on plaintiff’s property. ECF No. 1 at 1. Law enforcement arrived and discovered a 26 “butane honey oil” lab and a marijuana grow. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff’s then brother-in-law took 27 responsibility for having caused the fire. Id. at 6. Child Protective Services took plaintiff’s son 28 and daughter into custody. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that the social workers “kidnapped” his 1 children and that their reasons for denying him his parental rights were false. Id. at 8. He alleges 2 further that false evidence was presented in court and he was denied his “constitutional rights.” 3 Id. at 11. Plaintiff fathered another child, who was born on May 16, 2016. Id. at 12. That child 4 was taken into the custody of Child Protective Services on May 17, 2016. Id. Plaintiff is 5 currently confined to a county jail as a pretrial detainee. He challenges various conditions of his 6 confinement, including the denial of medical cannabis and a lack of precautions to guard against 7 the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 16-17. 8 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening for two reasons. First, plaintiff cannot 9 litigate the jail’s conditions of confinement and the termination of his parental rights in the same 10 action. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a claimant to raise unrelated claims 11 against different defendants in a single action. Instead, a plaintiff may add multiple parties where 12 the asserted right to relief arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and a common question 13 of law or fact will arise in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims involving 14 different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. Second, the complaint lacks sufficient 15 allegations to state a section 1983 claim. To state such a claim, plaintiff must allege: (1) the 16 violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by 17 a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. 18 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). As to the claims against the social workers, plaintiff 19 has not alleged that any one of them was a “state actor.” As to the claims regarding the 20 conditions of confinement at the jail, they are simply too vague and conclusory to support any 21 cognizable claim. 22 Leave to Amend 23 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 24 amended complaint it should observe the following: 25 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 26 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 27 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 28 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 1 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 2 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 3 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 4 in the amended complaint. 5 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 7 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 8 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 9 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 10 without reference to any earlier filed complaint.1 E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an 11 amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is 12 filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. 13 Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 14 the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 15 Cir. 1967)). 16 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 17 fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 18 procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. 19 Conclusion 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 22 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 23 in accordance with the notice to the Sacramento County Sheriff filed concurrently 24 herewith; 25 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 26 days from the date of service of this order; and 27 1 For this reason, plaintiff’s separately filed “amendments” to his complaint (ECF Nos. 5, 28 8) are disregarded. WAU COU □□ VAIN A DMM UEC OO OF EOE VV 1 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the 2 reasons stated herein. 3 | DATED: August 28, 2020. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28