(PC) Florence v. Beards ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID FLORENCE, No. 2:19-cv-1441-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. BEARDS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 19 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 21 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Screening 23 I. Legal Standards 24 Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 25 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 27 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 28 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 1 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 2 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 3 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 4 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 5 a cause of action's elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 6 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are 7 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 8 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 9 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 11 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 12 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in 13 the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must 14 satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 16 pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the 17 grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-563 (2007). 18 II. Analysis 19 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to present a “short and plain statement of [his] claim” as 20 required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 (a)(2). The twenty- 21 page complaint lacks any effective method of overall organization and, instead, propounds a list 22 of discrete and underdeveloped allegations. Reading the complaint, it is entirely unclear to the 23 court which allegations are being offered solely for context and which form the substantive basis 24 of this suit. Plaintiff begins, for instance, by alleging that restrictions were unjustly placed on his 25 ability to visit with minors in 2014. ECF No. 1 at 6. A page later, he complains about an alleged 26 incident of excessive force/retaliation. Id. at 7. Elsewhere, he broadly alleges that prison officials 27 have retaliated against him for filing appeals and that they have conspired with his cellmates to 28 “get into it with [him].” Id. at 10. He describes medical issues which he alleges were not 1 addressed (id. at 14-15), inadequate procedures during a disciplinary hearing (id. at 16), 2 inappropriate sexual advances by defendant correctional officers (id. at 17), interference with 3 prescribed medications by defendants (id. at 19), and denial of access to courts (id. at 11, 20). 4 Suffice it to say, defendants could not reasonably be expected to grasp the contours of the claims 5 being made against them from this complaint. Additionally, plaintiff is informed that he may not 6 – as he attempts to do here – bring multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. 7 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[M]ultiple claims against a single party 8 are fine, but . . . [u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . . .”). 9 III. Leave to Amend 10 Plaintiff will be given leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified above. He is 11 cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 12 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 13 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional 14 right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally 15 required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations 16 based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same 17 case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 18 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 20 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 21 George, 507 F.3d 605 at 607. 22 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 23 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 24 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 25 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 26 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 27 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 28 1967)). 2 fF UVM IT □□□ □□□ IR Ee PAY OT Mt 1 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 2 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 3 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 4 | amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 5 || and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 6 | actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 7 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 8 Conclusion 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 10 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; 11 2. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 12 | from the date of service of this order; and 13 3. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in 14 | the dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 15 || DATED: April 22, 2020. 16 Eg Vout 4 hub LH A 17 EDMUND F. BRENNAN ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28