(PC)Miller v. Thomas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-2103-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. THOMAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he also filed an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 20 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 21 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 22 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 23 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 24 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s complaint is plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring several unrelated 26 claims, presumably against different defendants. Claim 1 concerns the denial of medical care for 27 abdominal and leg pain between March 20, 2020 and January 2021. It does not identify a 28 defendant. ECF No. 1 at 4. Claim 2 alleges that on January 17, 2013, plaintiff was wrongfully 1 accused of rape. Id. at 5. Claim 3 alleges that plaintiff has been denied medical care for being 2 underweight from approximately July to November (no year specified). Id. at 6. It is well settled 3 that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: 4 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 5 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 6 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 7 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 8 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, there appears to be no basis for 9 litigating the two medical claims together in the same action, let alone the medical claims and the 10 false rape allegation claim. These claims encompass discrete events and presumably, separate 11 defendants, rendering them ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. Further, none of the claims are 12 supported by allegations sufficient to state a specific claim against a specific defendant(s). 13 Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 14 Leave to Amend 15 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 16 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 17 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 18 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 19 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 20 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 21 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 22 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 24 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 25 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 26 multiple defendants. Id. 27 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 28 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 1 | complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint ts filed, the 2 | earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 3 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 4 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 5 | 1967)). 6 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 7 | requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 8 | background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 9 | amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 10 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 11 | actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot’ approach in 12 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 13 Conclusion 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 16 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 17 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 18 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; 19 3. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 20 of service of this order; and 21 4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. 22 | DATED: January 19, 2022. 23 □□ PDEA nA EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28