(PC) Chandler v. County of Shasta ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL BRIAN CHANDLER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 11 v. THIS ACTION 12 COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 13 Defendants. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO 14 STATE A CLAIM 15 ECF No. 10 16 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate during the period relevant to his claims, has filed an 19 amended complaint. ECF No. 10. For the reasons stated below, the complaint fails to state a 20 cognizable claim, and I recommend that it be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 Screening and Pleading Requirements 22 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 23 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 24 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 25 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 Plaintiff alleges that Shasta County violated his rights by failing to offer him parole. ECF 18 No. 10 at 3, 6. There is no constitutional entitlement to parole, however. See Greenholtz v. 19 Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (“There is no constitutional 20 or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid 21 sentence.”). Plaintiff thus cannot proceed, and, considering the fundamental non-viability of his 22 claim, offering him further opportunity to amend would be futile. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge 24 to this action. 25 Further, I RECOMMEND that plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 10, be 26 dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 27 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 28 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 1 | these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court and 2 || serve acopy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 | Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 4 | recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 27, 2021 Q_——. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28