(PC) Gray-Garrigus v. Margrini ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BILLY JOE GRAY-GARRIGUS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00706-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST 13 SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al., DEFENDANTS ERIK MARGRINI, RANDALL, AND MARLAR 14 Defendants. (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 15 TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION 16 ECF No. 9 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANT SHASTA COUNTY 18 JAIL BE DISMISSED 19 20 21 Plaintiff Billy Joe Gray-Garrigus alleges that defendants Erik Margrini, Randall, and 22 Marlar violated his Eighth Amendment rights by forcing him to share a jail cell with an inmate 23 who they knew, or should have known, was COVID-positive. ECF No. 9 at 3-4. As a result, 24 plaintiff contracted the disease. Id. at 3. These allegations state, for screening purposes, a 25 cognizable deliberate indifference claim. I recommend dismissing defendant Shasta County Jail, 26 however, insofar as it is not named in the amended complaint. 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 25 26 27 28 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that, in February of 2021, he was housed at the Shasta County Jail. ECF 3 No. 9 at 4. He claims that defendants, all of whom are supervisory staff at the jail, knowingly 4 housed him with an inmate named Wooley who had told jail staff that he was COVID positive. 5 Id. at 3. As a result of being housed with Wooley, plaintiff contracted COVID. Id. This 6 allegation is sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment1 deliberate indifference claim. As stated 7 above, the Shasta County Jail should be dismissed as a defendant because plaintiff has elected not 8 to include it in his amended complaint. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 10 1. Service is appropriate for defendants Erik Margrini, Randall, and Marlar, all of whom 11 were, at the times relevant to this complaint, employed by Shasta County. If service is successful, 12 this case will proceed on plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim 13 against these defendants. 14 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 15 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 16 following documents: 17 a. one completed summons for the defendants; 18 b. three completed USM-285 forms; and 19 c. four copies of the signed June 7, 2021 complaint. 20 3. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 21 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to 22 serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of 23 costs by plaintiff. 24 4. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 25 5. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action. 26 27 1 It appears that plaintiff was, at the time, a pre-trial detainee. If that is the case, his claim falls under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 28 Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 2 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that defendant Shasta County Jail be dismissed without 3 | prejudice because it was not named in the operative complaint and no claim has been stated 4 | against it. 5 This recommendation will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the case 6 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of these 7 | findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Any such 8 | written objections must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 | Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 10 | recommendations under 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)(1)(C). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ October 6, 2021 Q_—— 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 BILLY JOE GRAY-GARRIGUS, No 2:21-cv-00706-JDP (PC) 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 18 SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby submits: 22 1 completed summons form 23 3 completed forms USM-285 24 4 signed copies of the June 7, 2021 complaint 25 26 27 28