(PC) Petillo v. CSP Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS PETILLO, JR., No. 2:23-cv-02286-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 28 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 1 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 I. Screening Requirement 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 16 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 18 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 19 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 20 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 21 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 22 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 23 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 24 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 25 II. Allegations in the Complaint 26 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit while an inmate at California State Prison-Sacramento. He sues 27 the acting warden of the prison, several correctional captains, and other prison officials for 28 engaging in misconduct and making “terrorist threats” against him. Although difficult to 1 decipher plaintiff’s hand-written pleading, additional allegations also involve correctional 2 officers’ possession of illegal drugs. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, the termination of 3 the defendants from their prison jobs, and an investigation of the misconduct by the FBI and the 4 CIA. 5 III. Legal Standards 6 A. Linkage Requirement 7 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 8 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 9 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 10 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 11 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 12 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 13 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 14 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 15 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 16 plaintiff's federal rights. 17 B. Joinder of Claims and Parties 18 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant in a civil action. 19 Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where 20 “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to 21 or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and 22 “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 20(a)(2). However, unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate 24 lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only 25 to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to 26 ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 27 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the 28 required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 1 C. Threats and Verbal Insults 2 Plaintiff is informed that mere threats or verbal insults which include vulgar language 3 normally do not amount to an actionable Eighth Amendment claim. See Somers v. Thurman, 109 4 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1997) (“the exchange of verbal insults between inmates and guards is a 5 constant, daily ritual observed in this nation's prisons” of which “we do not approve,” but which 6 do not violate the Eighth Amendment); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (per 7 curiam) (it “trivializes the Eighth Amendment to believe a threat constitutes a constitutional 8 wrong.”). 9 D. Duplicative Filings 10 Plaintiff is warned against raising the same claims that are pending in another case that he 11 filed in this same court. See Petillo v. CSP Sac New Folsom Prison, Case No. 2:21-cv-01471-AC 12 (E.D. Cal.); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995); Bailey v. 13 Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually 14 identical causes of action subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). 15 IV. Analysis 16 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 17 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 18 court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 19 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 20 complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 21 v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least 22 some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. 23 Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 24 complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 25 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 26 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 27 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 28 each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there 1 is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 2 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 3 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 4 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of 5 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 6 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 7 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 8 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 9 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 10 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 11 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 12 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 13 V. Plain Language Summary 14 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 15 intended as legal advice. 16 The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not 17 state any claim against the defendants. Your complaint is being dismissed, but you are being 18 given the chance to fix the problems identified in this screening order. 19 Although you are not required to do so, you may file an amended complaint within 30 20 days from the date of this order. If you choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular 21 attention to the legal standards identified in this order which may apply to your claims. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 24 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 25 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 27 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 28 herewith. 1 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 2 4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than January 17, 2024 that complies 3 || with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local 4 || Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and 5 || must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 6 5. The failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 7 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 8 || Dated: December 15, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 12/peti2286.14.new 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28