(PC) Turner v. Baughman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRONE T. TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-1795-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 6, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on screening for 19 failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has now filed an 20 amended complaint (ECF No. 16) and the court must screen it. 21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 26 As before, the current complaint (ECF No. 16) alleges that in August of 2017, plaintiff 27 was a participant in the “Mental Health Services Delivery System.” ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims 28 this participation entitled him to ninety minutes of weekly out of cell “structured therapeutic 1 group activity.” Id. He again names the same two defendants – David Baughman, Warden of 2 CSP Sacramento and R. Valencia, chief mental health officer of the same institution. Id. at 2. 3 Plaintiff claims that both defendants were responsible for ensuring that he received his weekly 4 minutes of therapeutic group activities and both refused to diligently discharge their 5 responsibilities. Id. at 4, 6. He claims that his mental health ultimately “decompensated to the 6 point of suicidal ideations” and he required a mental health crisis bed. Id. at 5. 7 The court previously informed plaintiff that his allegations, taken as true, establish that he 8 had a serious medical need that was not adequately treated. The court further noted, however, 9 that plaintiff had failed to allege that either defendant knew about his serious medical needs and 10 corresponding lack of treatment. The amended complaint does nothing to cure this deficiency. 11 Baughman appears to be named as a defendant simply because of his role as a supervisor, which 12 is not a proper basis for liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). As for 13 Valencia, plaintiff alleges only that he “responded to [plaintiff’s] appeal” about the matter. ECF 14 No. 16 at 5. Linking Valencia to an administrative appeal, however, does not demonstrate that 15 Valencia violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference to 16 his serious medical needs. Indeed, there are no constitutional requirements regarding how a 17 grievance system is operated, even if plaintiff believes it to be unfair. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 18 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). 19 In sum, plaintiff has again failed to allege how either defendant was directly responsible 20 for his care or what (if any) interactions either had with him during the relevant period. The 21 allegations do not state who was personally responsible for denying plaintiff the ninety-minute 22 treatment in the first instance or why the treatment was not provided. The amended complaint 23 will be dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, he should 24 allege in specific terms how both defendants were personally responsible and/or aware of the 25 inadequacies in his medical care. 26 Leave to Amend 27 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 28 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 1 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 2 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 3 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 4 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 5 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 6 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 8 Plaintiff is warned that he may not bring multiple, unrelated claims against more than one 9 defendant. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he change the 10 nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See George, 507 F.3d 605 at 607. 11 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 12 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 13 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 14 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 15 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 16 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 17 1967)). 18 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 19 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 20 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 21 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 22 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 23 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 24 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 25 Conclusion 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 27 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is dismissed with leave to amend within 28 30 days from the date of service of this order; and wOASe 2 fMLP SING INI VR MAURO, OO POO MI OOPEN PAY OF UE St 1 2. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in the 2 || dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 3 | DATED: September 28, 2020. 4 Dating : heh bie 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28