(PC) James v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:22-cv-02193-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S LATEST APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 13 v. FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING HIS OTHERS AS MOOT, DENYING HIS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND DENYING 15 Defendants. DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR SCREENING AS MOOT 16 ECF Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, & 11 17 SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 18 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 19 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF 20 DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND PARTIES; 21 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 22 COMPLAINT 23 ECF No. 1 24 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 25 26 27 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings three separate and insufficiently related claims. He may 28 file an amended complaint that contains only related claims. If he does not, I will select a claim 1 to proceed and will recommend that the others be dismissed without prejudice so that those 2 claims may be brought in a separate action. I will also grant plaintiff’s latest application to 3 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, deny his earlier ones as moot, ECF No. 2 & 6, and deny 4 his request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2. Finally, I will deny defendant’s requests for 5 screening as moot. ECF Nos. 9 & 11. 6 Screening Order 7 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 8 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 9 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 10 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 12 relief. Id. 13 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 15 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 16 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 17 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 18 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 19 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 20 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 21 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 22 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 23 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 24 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 26 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 27 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 28 1 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 2 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 II. Analysis 4 As noted above, plaintiff’s complaint contains at least three separate and unrelated claims. 5 First, he alleges that, on February 16, 2022, defendant Saucedo and several other Sacramento 6 Sheriff’s Deputies used excessive force against him. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Second, plaintiff claims 7 that he suffered inadequate medical care for the injuries he sustained in that attack. This claim 8 might be sufficiently related to proceed with the excessive force allegations if it concerned only 9 the medical care plaintiff received in the immediate aftermath of the incident. Instead, however, 10 plaintiff’s allegations of inadequate care range in date from February 17, 2022, to November 16, 11 2022. Id. at 8-11. Third, plaintiff alleges that between November 2020 and October 2022 he 12 spoke with his assigned public defender at both the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center and the 13 Sacramento County Jail. Id. at 13. He claims that unnamed deputies violated his rights by 14 listening in on these conversations because the visiting booths were not sound-proof. Id. Claims 15 against multiple defendants can only proceed if they are based on the same “series of transactions 16 or occurrences” and common questions of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The aforementioned 17 claims are not based on the same transactions or occurrences. 18 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains only related claims. He is advised 19 that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 20 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will 21 need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 22 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 23 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 24 claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 25 should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 26 Finally, I will deny plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff 27 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 28 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent 1 | plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 2 | (1989). I may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The 3 || court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d 4 | at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 5 || exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court 6 | must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to 7 || articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 8 | F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 10 || present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, 11 | plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 12 | plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 2, is denied without prejudice. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED and his 15 earlier filed applications, ECF Nos. 2 & 6, are DENIED as moot. 16 2. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without 17 prejudice. 18 3. Defendant’s motions for screening, ECF Nos. 9 & 11 are DENIED as moot. 19 4. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 20 complaint that contains only related claims. If he does not, I will select a viable claim 21 and recommend that his others be dismissed without prejudice. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( 1 St = Dated: _ February 24, 2023 ———- 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28