(PC) Williams v. Bryant ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIE ROYCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01293-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED 12 v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS FIRST AND HIS MOTION FOR 13 F. BRANT, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT 14 Defendants. ECF Nos. 5, 6, & 7 15 SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 17 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS OR 18 PARTIES, OR 19 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this claim against several defendants employed at Mule 26 Creek State Prison. ECF No. 1 at 2. I have screened the complaint and determined that the 27 complaint contains multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant. I will grant 28 1 plaintiff an opportunity to amend and to narrow his/her1 claims before recommending dismissal 2 of claims or parties. Additionally, I will grant his/her second application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis, ECF No. 6, and deny as moot the first and the motion for extension of time to file an 4 application, ECF Nos. 5 & 9. 5 Screening Order 6 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 7 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 8 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 9 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 10 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 11 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 12 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 14 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 15 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 16 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 17 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 18 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 19 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 20 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 21 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 22 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 23 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 24 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 25 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 26 27 1 Plaintiff alleges that he/she is gender fluid, and this is the pronoun convention used in 28 the complaint. ECF No. 1 at 4. 1 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 2 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 3 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 4 II. Analysis 5 Plaintiff raises at least two unrelated claims against multiple defendants. First, he/she 6 alleges that, in 2020, defendants Bryant and Chili failed to protect him/her from an assault by 7 other inmates. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Second, he/she alleges that, in 2022, several defendants, 8 including Byrd, failed to adequately address his/her safety concerns. Id. at 11. These claims, 9 proceeding against different defendants and separated by significant time, are factually distinct 10 and cannot proceed together. Multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong 11 in separate lawsuits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 12 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 13 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). 14 Plaintiff may amend his/her complaint to include only related claims. If plaintiff decides 15 to file an amended complaint, 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). This means that the 17 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 18 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no 19 longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 20 plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient 21 detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the 22 appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that 23 claims or parties be dismissed. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED and 26 his/her first application and motion for extension of time, ECF Nos. 5 & 7, are DENIED as moot. 27 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an Amended 28 1 | Complaint or advise the court he/she wishes to stand by his/her current complaint. If he/she 2 | selects the latter 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. 7 ( — Dated: _ October 4, 2022 Q————. 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28