(PC) Duque v. Ryan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ALLEN DUQUE, No. 2:20-cv-1974-JAM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADAM RYAN, 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. 9.1 19 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody 22 of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth 23 in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 1 In light of this application (ECF No. 9), the court vacates the December 14, 2020 27 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8), which recommended that this action be dismissed because of plaintiff had failed to either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis. 1 Screening Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 15 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 18 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 20 678. 21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 26 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 28 ///// 1 Screening Order 2 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts three separate claims, each too vague and conclusory to 3 survive screening. Plaintiff’s first claim alleges inadequate medical care but is not linked to any 4 defendant and is short on specifics. See ECF No. 1 at 2 (alleging only that plaintiff “was denied 5 access to proper medical care and prescribed medications and diet.”). Plaintiff’s second claim is 6 partially illegible, as some of the allegations are too faint to read. As best the court can tell, 7 plaintiff alleges that defendants Padron, Vasquez, and Owens withheld his legal mail. Id. at 3. 8 Plaintiff’s third claim implicates a Shasta County Superior Court judge and the Shasta County Jail 9 chaplain in the denial of plaintiff’s right to religious freedom. However, plaintiff does not 10 identify any sincerely held religious belief or elaborate as to how his religious rights were 11 violated. 12 Plaintiff’s complaint is also plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring unrelated 13 claims against distinct groups of defendants. It is well settled that a claimant may not proceed 14 with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: 15 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 16 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 17 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 18 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 19 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s three claims appear to encompass 20 discrete events involving separate groups of defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single 21 suit. 22 Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 23 Leave to Amend 24 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 25 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 26 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 27 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 28 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 1 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 2 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 3 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 5 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 6 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 7 multiple defendants. Id. 8 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 9 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 10 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 11 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 12 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 13 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 14 1967)). 15 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 16 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 17 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 18 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 19 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 20 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 21 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 22 Conclusion 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 24 1. The December 14, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) are 25 VACATED; 26 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 2 in accordance with the notice to the Shasta County Sheriff filed concurrently 3 herewith; 4 4. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 5 days of service of this order; and 6 5. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 7 action. 8 || DATED: January 11, 2021. tid, PDEA 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28