(PC) Murillo v. District Attorney Office ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIXTO CRUZ MURILLO, Case No. 2:22-cv-01920-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, ECF No. 2 15 Defendant. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 17 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL; 18 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 19 COMPLAINT 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 case against the Tulare County District 25 Attorney’s Office. ECF No. 1. His allegations against this lone defendant are insufficient, 26 however. I will give plaintiff leave to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. 27 I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 5 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. Id. 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 II. Analysis 26 As noted above, plaintiff brings this action against one defendant, the Tulare County 27 28 1 District Attorney’s Office.1 His allegations, which are difficult to understand, are insufficient to 2 proceed. He appears to allege that some individual incorrectly input his release date into a 3 computer system, but he does not explain the nature of the error or who was specifically 4 responsible. ECF No. 1 at 4. I cannot understand what allegations he makes against the district 5 attorney’s office or its staff. To be sufficient, a complaint must put a defendant on notice of the 6 claims against that defendant, and plaintiff’s allegations fail to do that. See Marino v. Classic 7 Auto Refinishing, Inc., 37 F.3d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The purpose of notice pleading is to 8 give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it 9 rests.”) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). 10 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will 11 supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 12 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 13 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 14 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 15 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 16 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 17 Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 20 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 21 complaint. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 23 24 25 1 A district attorney’s office may not be a viable defendant in a section 1983 action. See 26 Kastis v. Alvarado, No. 1:18-cv-01325-DAD-BAM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115731, *23, 2019 27 WL 3037912 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2019) (acknowledging that there is a conflict in this circuit as to whether a district attorney’s office may be sued under section 1983). For screening purposes, I 28 will presume that such an entity may be sued. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ February 22, 2023 Q_——_. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28