(PC) Mendez v. Morales ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON EDDIE MENDEZ, No. 2:22-cv-01084-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. MORALES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges that in 2019, he was occasionally transferred 26 between California State Prison, Corcoran and California State Prison, Sacramento. Id. at 4. 27 Plaintiff claims that every time he arrived in Sacramento, he would be improperly confined for 28 hours in a standing cage. Id. at 9, 13-14. Plaintiff alleges that he could not sit, stretch or bend 1 over in the cage. Id. at 5. Two of these alleged instances are described in the complaint. The 2 first alleged instance occurred on April 11, 2019. Defendant correctional officers Raphael and 3 Morales allegedly confined plaintiff to the standing cage for ten hours, and denied him food, 4 medical care for his pain, and use of a bathroom. Id. at 9, 13. The second alleged instance 5 occurred on July 1, 2019. Id. at 4. Both defendants allegedly ignored plaintiff’s complaints, even 6 as he experienced both numbness and pain, lost consciousness and collapsed. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiff 7 allegedly was confined to the standing cage for almost eleven hours and was forced to urinate on 8 himself. Id. at 8. When over four hours had passed, plaintiff told Morales he would be filing an 9 administrative complaint against him. Id. at 5. In response, Morales allegedly threatened “Don’t 10 do something you’ll regret” and angrily walked away from the standing cage until the next shift 11 arrived. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that he filed administrative complaints and defendant 12 Matthews “collaborated” with defendant Morales “to execute a plan of retaliation by frustrat[ing] 13 administrative review.” Id. at 12. 14 Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment 15 conditions of confinement claim against defendants Morales and Raphael and a First Amendment 16 retaliation claim against defendant Morales. The allegations against defendant Matthews, 17 however, fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A First Amendment retaliation 18 claim requires a showing that a defendant took adverse action against a plaintiff because the 19 plaintiff engaged in conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 20 408 F.3d 559, 567-568 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not clearly alleged that Matthews retaliated 21 against him because of his engagement in any conduct protected by the First Amendment, nor has 22 he alleged how Matthews collaborated with Morales. Moreover, there are no constitutional 23 requirements regarding how a grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 24 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Leave to Amend 26 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies noted above. 27 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in 28 a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 1 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 2 he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 3 that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff is not obligated to file an amended complaint. 4 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 5 amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 6 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 7 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 8 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 9 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 10 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 11 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 12 1967)). 13 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 15 See Local Rule 110. 16 Conclusion 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 19 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 20 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 22 3. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, potentially cognizable Eighth 23 Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendants Morales and Raphael 24 and a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Morales. 25 4. All other claims (including those against defendant Matthews) are dismissed with leave 26 to amend within 30 days of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his 27 complaint. 28 ///// 1 5. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall return the notice below 2 advising the court whether he elects to proceed with the cognizable claims or file an 3 amended complaint. If the former option is selected and returned, the court will enter 4 an order directing service at that time. 5 6. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. 6 || Dated: November 2, 2022. 7 □□ PDEA 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAMON EDDIE MENDEZ, No. 2:22-cv-01084-EFB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. NOTICE 12 A. MORALES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 16 17 (1) ______ proceed only with the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement 18 claims against defendants Morales and Raphael and a First Amendment retaliation claim against 19 defendant Morales; 20 21 OR 22 23 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. 24 25 _________________________________ 26 Plaintiff 27 Dated: 28