(PC) Miller v. Alameda ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00653-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT 12 v. AND DIRECTING THAT THE CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 S. ALAMEDA, et al., THIS ACTION 14 Defendants. ECF No. 19 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO 17 STATE A CLAIM 18 ECF No. 17 19 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has now filed his third amended 22 complaint in this action. ECF No. 17. Like its predecessors, the latest complaint is difficult to 23 read, contains multiple, unrelated claims, and fails to state a cognizable claim against any named 24 defendant. I recommend that it be dismissed without leave to amend. 25 Screening Order 26 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 28 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 II. Analysis 22 Plaintiff raises three separate claims. First, he alleges that the named defendants have 23 provided inadequate medical care by withholding nutritional supplements. ECF No. 17 at 3. 24 Second, he alleges that in October of 2020, he was not properly treated for pain in his chest, arms, 25 and legs. Id. at 4. Third, he alleges that in July or August of 2021, he was falsely imprisoned 26 while he was out of prison and staying at an independent living facility. Id. at 5. These claims 27 bear no factual or legal relation to each other. Moreover, none of the claims adequately alleges 28 how any named defendant was responsible for the claimed violation of plaintiff’s rights. For 1 | instance, with respect to his claim about supplements, plaintiff alleges only that “defendant 2 | Alameda and all defendants involved . . . refused to give me my dietary supplements ....” Jd. at 3 | 3. He neither alleges what involvement or responsibility any defendant had for his care, nor that 4 | any defendant understood his need for supplements. As such, his allegations do not state a claim 5 || for deliberate indifference. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[An] 6 | inadvertent [or negligent] failure to provide adequate medical care alone does not state a claim 7 | under § 1983.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 I find that further leave to amend is unwarranted. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities 9 | to state a viable claim and has failed to do so. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time, ECF No. 19, is denied as moot.! 12 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 13 Further, [RECOMMEND that plaintiff's third amended complaint, ECF No. 17, be 14 | dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 15 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 16 | case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 17 | these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court and 18 | serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 | Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 20 | recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ December 13, 2021 Q_-——_ 24 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 {|_| 'T have reviewed the motion for extension of time and nothing therein affects my 28 | analysis of plaintiff's third amended complaint. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28