- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 2:19-CV-2100-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 35. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 Plaintiff names Xavier Becerra, former Attorney General, as the sole defendant. 9 ECF No. 35, pg. 2. In Plaintiff’s fourth attempt to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff alleges that 10 Defendant Becerra “entered into a contract intentionally, knowingly and voluntarily with 11 Claimant, then breached said contract by not responding/rebutting it, in the prescribed time 12 allotted in said agreement, thus consenting and agreeing to all stated therein.” Id. Plaintiff’s 13 complaint is littered with irrelevant rule statements and definitions. See generally id. Plaintiff 14 concludes saying, “Wherefore, based upon the above-stated facts, Claimant enters into the court’s 15 record by way of common-law writ in the capacity of Claimant’s own judicial authority as 16 Claimant is a sovereign and issues this writ directly to the clerk of the court.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff 17 orders, among other things, $1,000,000 per day since August 9, 1998, and that 25 inmates be 18 released. Id. at 5-6. 19 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable cause of action under § 1983. 22 Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim but fails to allege how his constitutional rights were 23 violated. Nor does Plaintiff provide the Court with any facts. 24 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 25 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged constitutional or 26 statutory deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. 27 Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional 28 right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's 1 | affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the 2 | deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 3 || Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights 4 | violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 5 || Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in 6 || the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 7 Plaintiff fails to allege any action by Defendant Becerra connected to a 8 | constitutional deprivation. 9 10 Il. CONCLUSION 11 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 12 || cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 13 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 14 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's third 15 || amended complaint, ECF No. 35, be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days 18 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 20 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 21 | Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 24 | Dated: January 20, 2022 Co 2 DENNIS M. COTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:19-cv-02100
Filed Date: 1/21/2022
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024