(PC) Garcia v. Jones ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ORLANDO GARCIA, No. 2:19-cv-1601-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT JONES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On April 17, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint for failure to state a claim 19 upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff was given leave to amend and he has 20 now submitted an amended complaint (ECF No. 18), which the court must screen. 21 Screening 22 I. Legal Standards 23 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 26 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 27 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 1 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 3 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 4 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 5 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 6 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 7 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 8 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 10 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 11 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 12 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 13 678. 14 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 16 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 18 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 19 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 20 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 21 II. Analysis 22 Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the Sacramento County jail, he suffered an 23 “attack” on April 3, 2019 which left him with permanent nerve damage and “pettimal1 seizures.” 24 ECF No. 18 at 5. He has sued only Sheriff Scott Jones whom he alleges crafted a policy of 25 allowing deputies to screen medical emergencies for jail health services providers. Id. at 3. At 26 first blush, plaintiff’s issue with the policy appears to be its reliance on non-medical personnel to 27 28 1 Plaintiff presumably means “petit mal” seizures. 1 alert health providers to inmate needs. However, in the body of the complaint, plaintiff claims 2 that his relevant health attack was “told to medical staff . . . who then put [his] emergency on 3 hold.” Id. at 5. Thus, to the extent the blame for the delay is assigned to jail medical staff, it is 4 unclear how Sheriff Jones or the policy attributed to him have any culpability in the injury 5 alleged.2 6 The court will provide plaintiff with one final opportunity to submit an amended 7 complaint before it recommends this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 8 III. Leave to Amend 9 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 10 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 11 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 12 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 13 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 14 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 15 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 16 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 18 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 19 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 20 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 21 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 22 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 23 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 24 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 25 ///// 26 27 2 Plaintiff also alleges that an officer at the jail named Elliott wrongly assessed him with a rules violation report. ECF No. 18 at 5. It is unclear how, if at all, plaintiff alleges that Jones is 28 culpable for this separate issue. wOAOe 2.4 VV VEY ER MMU OI Oe PAY OT 1 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 2 | 1967)). 3 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 4 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 5 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 6 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 7 || and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 8 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 9 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 10 Conclusion 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 18) is dismissed with leave to amend 13 || within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and 14 2. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in the 15 || dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 16 | DATED: September 28, 2020. 17 Datta Zot Sn ao 18 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28