(PC) Armenta v. Miranda ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD ARMENTA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00022-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 v. PAUPERIS 12 RAFAEL MIRANDA, et al., ECF No. 6 13 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 14 (1) PROCEED ONLY WITH HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MIRANDA; OR 15 (2) DELAY SERVING ANY DEFENDANT 16 AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 ECF No. 1 18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 22 denying him adequate medical care. His allegations against defendant Miranda are cognizable, 23 but his claims against the other defendants are too conclusory to proceed. Plaintiff must choose 24 whether to proceed only with his claims against Miranda or to delay serving any defendant and 25 file an amended complaint. I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 26 ECF No. 6. 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Rafael Miranda, a physician assistant at High Desert State 27 Prison (“HDSP”), violated his rights by changing, without medical justification, pain medication 28 that had been prescribed to treat his nerve pain and by failing to prescribe him a course of 1 physical therapy. ECF No. 1 at 3, 17. These allegations are, for screening purposes, suitable to 2 proceed. 3 Plaintiff also brings this action against several supervisory defendants including: (1) B. 4 Kiebler, the Warden of HDSP; (2) K. Reuter, the Chief Medical Officer at HDSP; and (3) K. 5 Allison, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Id. at 2. 6 After review, I find the allegations against these defendants insufficient to proceed insofar as they 7 amount to little more than conclusory legal or factual assertions. For instance, plaintiff alleges 8 that Warden Kiebler oversees HDSP and has a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided with 9 adequate medical care. ECF No. 1 at 10. This may be true, but the complaint fails to draw any 10 explicit link between Kiebler and the care plaintiff received. There is no allegation that Kiebler 11 was directly involved in plaintiff’s care and no factual specifics show that the warden knew about 12 the alleged inadequacies in treatment. Elsewhere, plaintiff alleges that Secretary Allison is 13 responsible for the shortcomings in care because she “provided a physician who does not meet 14 minimum standards of competence of diligence . . . .” Id. at 21. He does not elaborate as to what 15 role, if any, Allison played in hiring Miranda or whether she knew about the particulars of 16 plaintiff’s care. Plaintiff’s allegations against Reuter are similar. Id. at 7 (alleging, without 17 elaboration, that Reuter failed to adequately respond to plaintiff’s medical needs). 18 As a final note, plaintiff’s complaint, while ultimately intelligible, is difficult to read. The 19 pages are not divided into paragraphs or subsections, and the twenty-four pages of text follow no 20 obvious method of organization. If plaintiff does choose to amend, he would be well served by 21 breaking the complaint into discrete sections so that the reader can better understand his 22 allegations. 23 Plaintiff may either proceed only with the cognizable claims against defendant Miranda 24 identified above or he may delay service and file an amended complaint. If plaintiff decides to 25 file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 26 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 27 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 28 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no 1 | longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 2 | plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient 3 | detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the 4 | appropriate case number. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either advise that he 7 | wishes to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs 8 | claims against defendant Miranda or delay service and file an amended complaint. 9 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 11 4. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ April 5, 2023 q_———. 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28