(PC) Bradford v. Gee ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00714-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 12 v. CASE 13 S. GEE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT: 14 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 16 ECF No. 23 17 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 18 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED 19 ECF No. 25 20 21 22 After previously filing two deficient complaints, plaintiff has filed a second amended 23 complaint. ECF No. 23. I find that this new complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, plaintiff has ignored my warning that unrelated claims 25 against multiple defendants cannot proceed in a single action. See ECF No. 17 at 4. Having 26 already given plaintiff two opportunities to amend, I will recommend that his second amended 27 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. In light of this recommendation, I also find that 28 1 plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 25, should be denied. 2 Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court can dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 Analysis 26 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is difficult to decipher. After listing at least fifteen 27 defendants, ECF No. 23 at 2-4, plaintiff alleges various and unrelated violations of his state and 28 federal rights. First, he argues that, in a different federal suit, defendants barred his access to 1 court by falsely stating that he had not administratively exhausted his claims. Id. at 5. Second, he 2 claims that defendants housed him in unsafe conditions.1 Id. at 7. Third, he alleges that they 3 denied him adequate medical care by withholding pain medication and failing to treat various 4 ailments, including a broken wrist, rectal pain, leg swelling, and stomach cramps. Id. There are 5 more unrelated claims, but I find it unnecessary to list them all here. Plaintiff’s claims are not 6 sufficiently related to proceed in one suit. Moreover, each claim is pleaded so vaguely that it fails 7 to provide defendants adequate notice of how they are alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights. 8 For instance, with respect to one of his medical claims, plaintiff broadly references “the prison 9 medical [and] mental health [and] custody appeals staff” and claims that all were responsible for 10 placing him at a heightened risk of contracting valley fever. Id. at 7. I have already given 11 plaintiff two opportunities to amend his complaint, and the most recent complaint has not 12 improved on its predecessors. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this case. 14 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 23, be dismissed without leave to 16 amend. 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 25, be denied. 18 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 19 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 20 these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. That 21 document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 22 The presiding district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(C). 24 25 26 27 1 I will refer to defendants collectively, since it is difficult to discern how each of them is 28 alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights with respect to each claim. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 25, 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