(PC) Ellsworth v. El Dorado County Nursing Staff ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY ELLSWORTH, No. 2:21-cv-1070-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EL DORADO COUNTY NURSING STAFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he also filed an application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 21 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 22 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 23 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 24 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 25 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 5 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 7 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 10 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 11 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 17 678. 18 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 20 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 22 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 23 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 24 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 Screening Order 26 Plaintiff’s complaint is plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring two unrelated 27 claims against two distinct groups of defendants. Plaintiff’s first claim is against the “El Dorado 28 County Nursing Staff” for their failure to meet plaintiff’s mental health needs since he was 1 booked at the jail on March 8, 2021. Plaintiff’s second claim is against “El Dorado County Jail 2 Staff” for opening mail from plaintiff’s attorney outside of plaintiff’s presence on May 7, 2021. 3 It is well settled that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against 4 separate defendants: 5 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 6 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 7 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 8 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 9 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims encompass discrete events 10 involving separate defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. 11 Further, claims against unidentified “staff” cannot survive screening because unknown 12 persons cannot be served with process until they are identified by their real names and the court 13 will not investigate the names and identities of unnamed defendants. 14 Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 15 Leave to Amend 16 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 17 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 18 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 19 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 20 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 21 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 22 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 23 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 25 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 26 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 27 multiple defendants. Id. 28 ///// ] Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 2 | without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L-.R. 220. This is because an amended 3 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 4 | earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 5 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 6 || being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 7 || 1967)). 8 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 9 || requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 10 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 11 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 12 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 13 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 14 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 15 Conclusion 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 18 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 19 in accordance with the notice to the El Dorado County Sheriffs Office at 300 Fair 20 Lane, Placerville, CA, 95667, filed concurrently herewith; 21 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 22 from the date of service of this order; and 23 4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 24 action. 25 | DATED: August 23, 2021. Ss Vorton / os LL Ln A 26 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28