(PC) Rouser v. Khripach ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00233-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 13 v. DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT KHRIPACH PROCEED AND ALL 14 J. LYNCH, et al., OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. ECF No. 11 16 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 17 DAYS 18 19 I previously screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and advised him that it contains 20 claims that, because they are unrelated, cannot proceed in a single action. I notified plaintiff that 21 he could either file an amended complaint including only related claims or stand by the amended 22 complaint, subject to dismissal of the complaint or parties. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has elected to 23 stand by the amended complaint. ECF No. 13. Instead of dismissing the amended complaint in 24 its entirety, I recommend that plaintiff be permitted to proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment 25 discrimination claim against defendant Khripach, and that his remaining claims be dismissed 26 without prejudice. 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 Analysis 25 Plaintiff’s complaint contains unrelated claims against different defendants. ECF No. 11. 26 I will not describe each of these claims, but will list a few examples: (1) defendant Khripach 27 acted with racial animus against plaintiff, who is African-American, because he did not force 28 inmates of other races in the cellblock to accept cellmates; (2) defendant Martin was deliberately 1 indifferent to his serious medical needs by preparing a faulty health assessment in preparation for 2 a disciplinary hearing; and (3) defendants Charon and Bennamon denied plaintiff the use of 3 witnesses and evidence at a hearing. 4 These allegations are based on sets of discrete facts, each of which concerns multiple 5 defendants. As plaintiff was previously notified, his unrelated claims cannot be litigated together. 6 ECF No. 12 at 3; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (allowing a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in one 7 action where “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with 8 respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” 9 and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action”). 10 Instead of recommending dismissal, I recommend that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on 11 his first claim of discrimination against defendant Khripach. I recommend that all other claims be 12 dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may bring them, if he so wishes, in separate actions. 13 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or 14 drop a party.”). 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to randomly 16 assign a United States District Judge to this case. 17 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the amended complaint’s Fourteenth Amendment 19 discrimination claim against defendant Khripach. 20 2. All other claims be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 21 3. If these recommendations are adopted, the matter be referred back to me to initiate 22 service on defendant Khripach. 23 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 24 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 25 these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Any 26 such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 27 Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 28 1 || recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 2 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | Dated: _ October 29, 2021 Jusrone ime JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28