(PC) Peterson v. Stewart ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD KEMONI PETERSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 A.W. STEWART, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against various defendants at California State 22 Prison-Sacramento based on two separate slip-and-falls incidents that left him injured. ECF No. 23 1 at 4-5. For the reasons below, the complaint cannot proceed as currently articulated. I will 24 grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 25 26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights when, in April 2021, he notified 3 defendant Emily Matthews, a prison maintenance supervisor, about a puddle in front of his cell. 4 ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff claims that no action was taken and, on April 26, 2021, he exited his 5 cell, slipped on the puddle, and sustained injuries to his back, shoulder, and neck serious enough 6 to necessitate use of a cane. Id. 7 Separately, plaintiff alleges that, in December 2021, he informed defendant Leckie, a 8 correctional captain, that the roof of his cell block was still leaking. Id. at 5. Leckie assured him 9 that he was aware of the problem and that someone would repair it soon. Id. Later that day, 10 plaintiff slipped on water from the leak and sustained new injuries. Id. 11 These two claims, though both related to slip-and-fall accidents, are not sufficiently 12 factually related to proceed in a single lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); see also 13 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (multiple claims against a single party are 14 permissible; unrelated claims against multiple defendants belong in separate suits). They 15 occurred months apart and assign responsibility for the failings to different defendants. 16 Additionally, some of the named defendants, like Warden Stewart, are not alleged to have had 17 any direct culpability for either incident. Plaintiff should explain how, if at all, each defendant 18 liable for his injuries. 19 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these deficiencies. He is advised 20 that the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 21 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to 22 be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. 23 Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 24 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 25 claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 26 should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 27 28 1 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 4 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 5 | complaint. If he does not, I will deem the first slip and fall incident to be the only viable claim 6 | and screening will proceed based solely on those allegations. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ June 5, 2023 q-—— 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28