(PC) Autry v. Jones ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 SCOTT R. JONES, et al., PAUPERIS AND HIS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN 15 Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 ECF Nos. 5 & 16 17 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 18 ECF No. 18 19 SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 20 (1) STAND BY HIS AMENDED 21 COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF 22 DISMISSAL; 23 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 ECF No. 17 25 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff, who is confined at the Sacramento County Jail, brings numerous unrelated 2 claims in a lengthy and difficult-to-understand complaint that cannot proceed past screening. He 3 may file an amended complaint that contains only related claims and sets forth its allegations in a 4 cogent manner. I will also grant plaintiff’s latest application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 5 No. 5, and his motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 16.1 I will 6 deny his request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 18. 7 Screening Order 8 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 9 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 10 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 11 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 12 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 13 relief. Id. 14 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 17 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 18 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 19 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 20 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 21 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 22 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 23 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 24 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 25 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 26 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 17, is timely. 1 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 2 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 3 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 4 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 5 II. Analysis 6 As noted above, plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple separate and unrelated claims. For 7 instance, he alleges that, in November 2022, defendant Le violated his rights by finding him 8 guilty of a disciplinary violation without sufficient process. ECF No. 17 at 5. Separately, he 9 alleges that in June 2022, unnamed Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies destroyed his property 10 during a search of his cell and used excessive force against him during a strip search of his 11 person. Id. at 10. In another claim, plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by another inmate in 12 January 2022 and, despite being innocent of any wrongdoing, was punitively rehoused. Id. at 16. 13 The forty-four-page complaint also contains other claims that bear no apparent relation to the 14 aforementioned claims. Claims against multiple defendants can only proceed if they are based on 15 the same “series of transactions or occurrences” and common questions of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 20(a)(2). Plaintiff’s claims are not based on the same transactions or occurrences. 17 On a more basic level, the complaint is hard to understand insofar as the handwriting is 18 faded in parts, see ECF No. 17 at 13-14, and not separated into paragraphs or subsections. 19 Additionally, many of the named defendants receive, as best I can tell, no explicit mention in the 20 body of the complaint. Plaintiff may remedy these deficiencies in any amended complaint he 21 chooses to file. 22 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will 23 supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 24 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 25 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 26 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 27 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 28 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 1 Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel 3 I will also deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. He does not have a constitutional 4 right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 5 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. 6 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). I may request the 7 voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney 8 to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 9 means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In 10 determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the 11 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se 12 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal 13 quotation marks and citations omitted). 14 I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 15 present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, 16 plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 17 plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied without prejudice. 18 I may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so 19 require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation 20 of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, and his motion for 23 extension of time, ECF No. 16, are GRANTED. 24 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18, is DENIED without 25 prejudice. 26 3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 27 complaint that contains only related claims. 28 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 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