(PC) Cross v. Sacramento Jail Medical ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JEFFERY CROSS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02016-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 12 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 13 SACRAMENTO JAIL MEDICAL, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL; OR 14 Defendants. (2) FILE A SECOND AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT 16 ECF No. 8 17 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail, defendant Kyle 21 Miyamura used excessive force against him and other, unnamed defendants failed to treat injuries 22 that he sustained in the incident. ECF No. 8 at 2, 5. These allegations are inadequately pled and, 23 moreover, do not appear sufficiently related to proceed in the same lawsuit. I will grant plaintiff 24 an opportunity to amend and to narrow his claims before recommending dismissal of this case. 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 raises two unrelated claims against more than one defendant. First, he vaguely 3 alleges that defendant Miyamura used excessive force against him by throwing him to the ground 4 and breaking his collarbone. ECF No. 8 at 2. Although plaintiff includes Miyamura’s name in 5 the claim’s title, he does not explain what this defendant did. Rather, he alleges that “they”—an 6 unspecified number of unknown assailants—threw him to the ground. Id. I cannot tell how 7 Miyamura was involved. For instance, he might have actively participated in throwing plaintiff 8 to the ground, or he might have failed to intervene to stop other officers from doing so. If 9 plaintiff wishes to pursue this claim, he must plead additional context and describe what the 10 defendant did or failed to do. 11 Second, plaintiff alleges that he told an unnamed nurse about his broken collarbone and 12 that she told him to request a provider appointment. Id. at 5. Two months elapsed, however, 13 before plaintiff saw a doctor. The doctor allegedly took x-rays and told plaintiff that nothing 14 could be done for his shoulder. Id. This claim is not sufficiently related to the excessive force 15 claim against Miyamura. Moreover, plaintiff has not named any defendant as being responsible 16 for this inadequate care. 17 Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint to include only related claims that are 18 adequately pled. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 19 supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 20 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 21 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 22 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 23 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 24 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 25 Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 26 amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 27 28 1 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 3 1. Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff must either file another Amended 4 | Complaint or advise me that he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 5 | option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 6 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ August 31, 2022 Q————. 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON Db UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28