(PC) Baker v. Solorano ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MILLARD WAYNE BAKER, JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-01096-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS SECOND AS MOOT 13 SOLORANO, et al., ECF Nos. 2 & 9 14 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 15 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 16 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF 17 DISMISSAL, OR 18 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 ECF No. 1 20 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this claim against eleven different defendants employed 25 at Old Folsom State Prison. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. I have screened the complaint and determined that 26 the complaint contains multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. I will grant 27 plaintiff an opportunity to amend and narrow his claims before recommending dismissal of claims 28 or parties. Additionally, I will grant his first application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1 2, and deny his second, ECF No. 9, as moot. 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 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 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff raises at least four unrelated claims against more than one defendant. First, he 3 alleges that, on March 21, 2022, defendants Solorano and Morris failed to protect him after he 4 was assaulted by another inmate. ECF No. 1 at 5. Second, he alleges that, on that same date and 5 while he was in “the tank” after his fight with another inmate, defendant Eckhardt conducted a 6 retaliatory search of his cell. Id. at 6. Next, he alleges that the following day, March 22, 2022, 7 several other correctional officers failed to protect him from a second assault by three other 8 inmates. Id. at 7. Finally, he alleges that a “Doe” defendant denied him medical attention after 9 his altercations with the other inmates. Id. at 10. Multiple, unrelated claims against more than 10 one defendant belong in separate lawsuits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 11 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A 12 against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). These 13 various claims involve different facts and defendants and are not sufficiently related to proceed in 14 the same lawsuit. 15 Plaintiff may amend his complaint to include only related claims. If plaintiff decides to 16 file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 17 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 18 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 19 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no 20 longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 21 plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient 22 detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the 23 appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that 24 claims or parties be dismissed. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED and his 27 second application, ECF No. 9, is DENIED as moot. 28 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an Amended 1 | Complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 2 | option, I will recommend that claims or parties be dismissed. 3 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 4 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 9, 2022 Q_—_—. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28