(PC) Puckett v. Diaz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 2:21-cv-00294-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 12 v. (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 13 RALPH DIAZ, et al., (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE 14 Defendants. WISHES TO STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO 15 DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 16 ECF No. 7 17 SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is difficult to understand and contains unrelated claims 21 against more than one defendant. I will give him an opportunity to amend before recommending 22 dismissal of this action. 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 25 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 26 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 27 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 28 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 The amended complaint contains at least three unrelated claims. First, plaintiff alleges 20 that defendants Alfero, Lozano, Baughman, Diaz, Castillo, and Newsom violated his due process 21 rights by forcing him to wear a “bite mask” and confining him to the special housing unit. ECF 22 No. 7 at 4-5. Second, he alleges that a correctional officer named Babb has violated his Eighth 23 Amendment rights by preventing him from accessing mental health services. Id. at 5. Third, 24 plaintiff also alleges that prison staff have retaliated against him for filing lawsuits by sending 25 “assassins” to threaten him. Id. at 6. Factually unrelated claims against multiple defendants 26 belong in separate lawsuits, see George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), and plaintiff 27 has not shown that these three claims are sufficiently related to proceed together. 28 Additionally, the lack of organization in the complaint makes it difficult to understand. 1 | Plaintiff references numerous defendants, but devotes little time to describing the specifics of 2 | each individual’s involvement. The result is a series of vague claims that do not explain to the 3 | reader how each defendant allegedly violated plaintiffs rights. 4 I will give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. If plaintiff decides to file an amended 5 | complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 6 | County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 7 | complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. 8 | Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any 9 | function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff must assert 10 | each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 11 | should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If 12 | plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will either drop parties as justice requires or 13 || recommend dismissal of this action for failure to follow court instructions. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Within sixty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 16 Amended Complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. 17 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 18 3. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ June 8, 2021 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28