(PC) Coons v. C.D.C.R. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY COONS, Jr., No. 2:20-cv-1813-JDP P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C.D.C.R., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he also filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). The court will grant his application and screen the 20 complaint. 21 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 22 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 23 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 24 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 25 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Federal courts are required to screen cases in which prisoners seek redress from a 28 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief.” Id.§ 1915A(b). 5 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 7 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 10 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 11 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twomblyand Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 12 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 16 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus,551 U.S. 89(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s claims he has been denied a lower bunk chrono for an injured knee. He claims 26 that on February 19, 2020, he fell and injured himself trying to access his upper bunk. He claims 27 he was subsequently denied medical care. 28 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening. According to the complaint, plaintiff has 1 been denied basic necessities and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The only named 2 defendant, however, is CDCR. CDCR is not a proper defendant because it is a state agency that 3 is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 4 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) 5 (holding that prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR for damages and injunctive 6 relief were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. 7 Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (explaining that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to 8 state agencies). Plaintiff will begiven leave to amend in order to identify the particular individual 9 or individuals who allegedly violated his federal statutory or constitutional rights. In any 10 amended complaint, plaintiff should allege who denied him a lower bunk chrono and why. He 11 should also describe his medical needs after falling, identify any individuals from whom he 12 sought medical attention, and state the purportedbasis on which he was denied medical attention. 13 Leave to Amend 14 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 15 amended complaint,it should comply withthe followingguidelines: 16 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 17 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 18 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (explaining that a person subjects another to the 19 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 20 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint 21 should also describe, in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated 22 in the violation of his rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that havenot 23 been explicitly set forth in the amended complaint. 24 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 26 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 27 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 28 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in and of wOAOe 2 OU UV PIR Ee AY Tt 1 | itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an 2 || amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is 3 || filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. 4 | Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (‘[The] ‘amended complaint supersedes the 5 || original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 6 || 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). 7 Finally, any amended complaint should be as concise as possible while meeting the above 8 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should not include procedural or factual background 9 | that has no bearing on his legal claims. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 12 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 13 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 14 filed concurrently herewith. 15 3. — Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days of 16 service of this order. 17 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 18 stated herein. 19 | DATED: October 6, 2020 20 pangs Wie JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28