(PC) Suggett v. Solano County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 v. FAILS TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING STANDARDS AND OFFERING LEAVE 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE TO AMEND CENTER, et al., 15 ECF No. 8 Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 17 ECF No. 6 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Solano County Jail, alleges that defendants violated her rights 22 by failing to provide adequate medical care and by retaliating against her for filing grievances. I 23 previously found some of her claims cognizable, ECF No. 7, but noted that the complaint 24 contained unrelated claims. I informed plaintiff that she could proceed with one set of cognizable 25 claims, or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. Id. She selected the latter 26 option and filed a first amended complaint that is before me for screening. ECF No. 8. The first 27 amended complaint does not contain a “short and plain statement” of her claims showing that she 28 is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). I will give her leave to amend to remedy this 1 deficiency. I will also deny her motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 6. 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 5 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 6 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief. Id. 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 27 28 1 2 II. Analysis 3 Plaintiff’s nineteen-page complaint, which is not divided by claim, defendant, or 4 paragraph, is not a “short and plain statement” as contemplated by Rule 8. See McHenry v. 5 Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Prolix, confusing complaints such as the ones 6 plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.”). Though I can 7 generally understand the allegations on a line-by-line basis, it is difficult to tell where distinct 8 claims begin and end and whether certain allegations are merely offered for context or as the 9 basis for a new claim. The complaint’s lack of organization puts the court, and any defendant 10 who would be served, in the unenviable position of having to guess at the components of the 11 claims being brought. Rather than serving the complaint and risking delay or wasting judicial 12 resources due to misapprehensions about what claims are at issue, I find it more prudent to offer 13 plaintiff leave to amend. She is advised that any amended complaint should be organized in a 14 manner that permits easy understanding of what claims are being brought against each defendant. 15 Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 16 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended 17 complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 18 number. 19 Finally, I will deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff does not 20 have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 21 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent her. See 22 Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). I may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request 24 an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 26 exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court 27 must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to 28 1 | articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 2 | F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 4 | present here. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely to succeed on the merits and, at this 5 | point, I cannot say that she is incapable of articulating her claims on her own. Plaintiff does 6 | allege that her legal documents have been confiscated, but she has not described what these 7 | documents are, or why she needs them to prosecute this case that, for the time being, remains at 8 | the screening stage. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 6, is denied 9 | without prejudice. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 11 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 12 | complaint. If she does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 13 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 14 3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 6, is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ November 7, 2023 q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28