(PC) Ramsey v.Rasheed ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAVONE LOVOWE RAMSEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02544-JAM-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ECF No. 2 CORRECTIONS AND 14 REHABILITATION, et. al., SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 15 Defendants. (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 16 (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE 17 WISHES TO STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO 18 DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH 19 THIS ORDER. 20 ECF No. 1 21 SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 Plaintiff Ravone Lovowe Ramsey is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 24 civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants California 25 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and California Health Facility-Stockton 26 (“CHF”) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing inadequate care for an eye 27 condition. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. I find, for the reasons stated below, that plaintiff has failed to state 28 a cognizable claim. I will give him leave to amend his complaint. 1 Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No 2. It makes 2 the required showing and is granted.1 3 Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff will pay the filing fee in accordance with the concurrently filed collection order. 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendants CDCR and CHF provided inadequate care for an eye 3 injury that he suffered in October of 2019. ECF No. 1 at 4. He claims that he waited five days 4 before receiving any medical care for the injury and that defendants delayed scheduling corrective 5 surgery. Id. Plaintiff does not allege the exact nature of the injury. State agency CDCR, and by 6 extension the prisons that CDCR controls, are not “persons” within the meaning of section 1983 7 and cannot be sued under that statute. See Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 8 823 (9th Cir. 1969); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004). If plaintiff wants 9 this action to proceed, he should name the individual government actors, if any, responsible for 10 his inadequate care. 11 I will give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. If plaintiff decides to file an amended 12 complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 13 County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 14 complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. 15 Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any 16 function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff must assert 17 each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 18 should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff 19 chooses to stand on his current complaint, I will recommend that it be dismissed for failure to 20 state a claim. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 23 2. Within sixty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 24 Amended Complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. 25 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 26 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ February 22, 2021 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28