(PC) Walker v. Grether ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOEVON VIYALE WALKER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00463-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 11 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 12 K. GRETHER, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL, OR 13 Defendants. (2) FILE AN AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT 15 ECF No. 15 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings numerous, factually separate allegations against more 19 than twenty defendants. Thus, his amended complaint, like its predecessor, does not comply 20 with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I will give plaintiff one final chance to 21 amend before recommending dismissal of claims and parties. 22 Screening Order 23 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 25 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 26 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 27 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 II. Analysis 21 Plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. 22 First, he alleges that defendant Nystrom, a correctional officer, has harassed him for two years 23 because of grievances plaintiff filed against him. ECF No. 15 at 5. Second, plaintiff alleges that 24 defendants Jones and Grether wrongfully housed him on a special needs yard, even though he 25 should have been classified as a general population inmate. Id. at 9. Third, he alleges that 26 Plaintiff alleges that, on April 22, 2018, he ingested a sharp object that lodged in his intestines. 27 Id. at 10. He alleges that defendants Hernandez, Fehr, and Clifford conspired to ensure that the 28 object was placed in his food. Id. Plaintiff goes on to claim that defendant Ginny denied him 1 || adequate medical care for the object lodged in his intestines. Jd. at 12. Multiple, unrelated claims 2 | against more than one defendant belong in separate lawsuits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. 3 | Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, 4 | but Claim A against Defendant | should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 5 | 2.”). These various claims involve different facts and defendants and are not sufficiently related 6 | to proceed in the same lawsuit. 7 Plaintiff may amend his complaint to include only related claims. If plaintiff decides to 8 | file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 9 | Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 10 | amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 11 | See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no 12 | longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 13 | plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient 14 | detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the 15 | appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that 16 | claims or parties be dismissed. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an Amended 19 | Complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 20 | I may dismiss claims or parties so that only related claims proceed. 21 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( q oy — Dated: _ October 3, 2022 Q_-——— 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28