(PC) Manafov v. Rosario ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VUSAL MANAFOV, No. 2:19-cv-337-MCE-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. ARNOLD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Previously, the court screened plaintiff’s initial complaint, found it deficient, and 19 dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty days. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has filed an amended 20 complaint (ECF No. 14) which is screened below. 21 Screening 22 I. Legal Standards 23 Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 24 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 26 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 27 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 28 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 1 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 2 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 3 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 4 a cause of action's elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 5 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are 6 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 7 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 8 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 10 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 11 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in 12 the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must 13 satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 14 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 15 pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the 16 grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-563 (2007). 17 II. Analysis 18 In its previous screening order, the court informed plaintiff that he would not be permitted 19 to bring multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. ECF No. 9 at 3 (citing 20 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). This deficiency is manifest in the amended 21 complaint, however. Plaintiff has several claims, including: (1) defendant Rosario used excessive 22 force against him while restraining him on April 22, 2017 (ECF No. 14 at 3, 7); (2) defendants 23 Leau and Hamlin used excessive force against him during a strip search (id. at 9); (3) defendant 24 V. G. Chuksorji failed to provide plaintiff with adequate medical care after his interaction with 25 defendant Rosario (id. at 12); and (4) defendants Hanlon and Samaniego interfered with his 26 Islamic religious practice in some unspecified way (id. at 6-7, 16). The court will afford plaintiff 27 one final opportunity to remedy this deficiency by way of an amended complaint. If he persists 28 ///// 1 in ignoring the court’s screening directives, the court may add or drop parties as justice requires 2 or, if it appears more appropriate, may recommend that this action be dismissed. 3 III. Leave to Amend 4 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 5 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 6 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 7 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 8 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 9 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 10 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 11 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 13 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 14 George, 507 F.3d 605 at 607. 15 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 16 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 17 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 18 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 19 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 20 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 21 1967)). 22 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 23 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 24 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 25 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 26 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 27 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 28 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. wOASe 2 LDV EONS EE MMU PIO ee TAY ST Mt 1 Conclusion 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 3 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 14) is dismissed with leave to amend 4 | within 30 days from the date of service of this order; and 5 2. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in 6 || the dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 7 | DATED: April 21, 2020. tid. HDeMA 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28