(PC) Witt v. Helm ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JAMAL WITT, No. 2:20-cv-2054-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HELM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. The 19 court will grant his application and screen the complaint. 20 Screening Standards 21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 24 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 27 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 1 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 2 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 4 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 5 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 6 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 7 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 8 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 9 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 10 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 11 678. 12 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 14 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 16 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 17 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 18 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 19 Screening Order 20 Plaintiff alleges he is Muslim and has been denied a halal diet in violation of the First 21 Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 3. In a grievance attached to the complaint he states that “the 22 chaplain was supposed to put me on halal,” but he has not named the chaplain as a defendant. Id. 23 at 7. Instead, he has named Sergeant Helm as defendant, alleging that Helm disrespected plaintiff 24 during the administrative grievance process. However, there are no constitutional requirements 25 regarding how a grievance system is operated, even if plaintiff believes it to be unfair. See 26 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th 27 Cir. 1993). Thus, plaintiff may not recover damages from defendant Helm even if he felt 28 disrespected by him during the grievance process. 1 Plaintiff also alleges that on one occasion, he found a brown recluse spider in his food 2 tray. ECF No. 1 at 3. Although plaintiff labels this as a First Amendment claim, it is the Eighth 3 Amendment that would apply to such a claim. The Eighth Amendment, not the First, protects 4 prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. 5 Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). To show a violation of the Eighth 6 Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew of 7 and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 8 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Extreme deprivations 9 are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying 10 the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an 11 Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Although potentially 12 dangerous and unappetizing, the apparently isolated instance of a spider in plaintiff’s food does 13 not establish a “sufficiently serious” deprivation of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s 14 necessities.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 15 Leave to Amend 16 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 17 amended complaint it should observe the following: 18 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 19 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 20 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 21 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 22 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 23 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 24 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 25 in the amended complaint. 26 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 28 ///// 1 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 2 || George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 3 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 4 || without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 5 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 6 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 7 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 8 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 9 | 1967)). 10 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 11 | fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 12 | procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. 13 Conclusion 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 16 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 17 from the date of service of this order; and 18 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 19 stated herein. 20 | DATED: November 12, 2020. Eg Vout 4 hb LH AA 2] EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28