(PC) Evans v. Corter ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID ARKEEM EVANS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01377-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS 13 CORTER, et al., ECF No. 2 14 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 15 (1) PROCEED ONLY WITH HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE 16 FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CORTER AND 17 MARTIN; OR 18 (2) DELAY SERVING ANY DEFENDANT AND FILE AN 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants Corter and 25 Martin violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him during a 26 search. ECF No. 1 at 3. These claims are cognizable and may proceed past screening. Plaintiff 27 also seeks to hold Warden Lynch responsible for the alleged violation of his rights, but his 28 allegations against this defendant are not sufficient to proceed. Thus, plaintiff must choose 1 whether to proceed only with his claims against Corter and Martin or to delay serving any 2 defendant and to file an amended complaint. 3 I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 4 Screening Order 5 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 6 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 7 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 8 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 9 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 10 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 13 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 14 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 16 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 17 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 18 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 19 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 20 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 21 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 22 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 23 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 24 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 25 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 26 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 27 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that, on June 29, 2022, defendants Corter and Martin ordered him to 3 submit to a contraband search. ECF No. 1 at 12. After this search, defendant Corter directed him 4 to submit to a second search. Id. Plaintiff, who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, asked 5 that a female officer perform the search.1 Id. Corter refused that request and, when plaintiff 6 moved to gather his clothes, both Corter and Martin grabbed and violently bent his arm. Id. at 13. 7 Corter also deployed pepper spray against plaintiff. Id. These allegations are sufficient to state 8 an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against these defendants. 9 By contrast, plaintiff’s allegations against Warden Lynch are inadequate. He broadly 10 alleges that Lynch is responsible for the custody and treatment of inmates, that he has permitted a 11 pattern of excessive force at the institution, and that he has failed to train the correctional officers 12 who report to him. Id. at 14. These allegations are devoid of specifics and, ultimately, amount to 13 the sort of “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” that the Supreme Court 14 has held to be insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 Plaintiff may either proceed only with the cognizable claims identified above or he may 16 delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. If plaintiff decides to file an 17 amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. 18 Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 19 complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. 20 Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves 21 any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need 22 to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 23 complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2 is GRANTED. 26 27 1 As best I can tell, plaintiff has not indicated a desire for female or gender-neutral pronouns. If those pronouns are preferred, plaintiff may indicate as much in any subsequent 28 filing. 1 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff either advise that he wishes 2 | to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Corter and Martin or 3 | delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. 4 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 3, 2022 Q————. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28