(PC) Hill v. Bullard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-cv-2336 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BULLARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se. On January 20, 2022, plaintiff’s civil rights 18 complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed with leave to amend. Subsequently, 19 plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration of the court’s screening order. As discussed below, 20 upon reconsideration, the screening order is affirmed. 21 Plaintiff claims he refuses the “offer to contract with” this court, citing UCC 1-308, and 22 also admiralty law, corporations, commercial affairs, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 23 (ECF No. 11 at 2, 3-4.) Plaintiff is reminded that he filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To 24 prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 25 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 26 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 27 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 28 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 1 | connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 2 || See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 3 || (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Also, plaintiff appears to disagree with the finding that his second claim 1s duplicative of 5 || Hill v. Escobar, No. 2:21-cv-2118 JAM JDP P (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff states that “not all the 6 || defendants mentioned were part of different incidents that applied to a different event that were 7 || closely connected to a pattern of retaliation,” citing the Green Wall. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) 8 | However, plaintiff raised no retaliation claim in the original complaint filed herein. In addition, 9 || review of the docket in case no. 2:21-cv-2118 JAM JDP P reflects that at this time plaintiff may 10 | file an amended complaint as of right in such previously-filed case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As 11 | noted in the screening order, plaintiff must include all claims concerning the use of force while 12 || moving plaintiff to cell 102 in one action. (ECF No. 8 at 4-5.) 13 Plaintiff did not address the remainder of the court’s screening order. 14 Therefore, upon reconsideration, the undersigned affirms the January 20, 2022 order and 15 | grants plaintiff an additional thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is 16 || cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this 17 || action be dismissed.! 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 10 & 11) are granted; 20 2. Upon reconsideration, the January 20, 2022 order is affirmed; and 21 3. Plaintiff granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. 22 || Dated: March 10, 2022 Aectl Aharon 24 KENDALL J. NE mill2336.r0c UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 Q_—_ x Sod ' Plaintiff's first motion for reconsideration was not signed. Plaintiff is cautioned that as a pro se 28 || litigant, he must sign every document submitted to the court for filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).