(PC) Grant v. Covello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BOBBY RAY GRANT, JR., Case No. 2:21-cv-01878-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 v. PAUPERIS 12 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., ECF No. 2 13 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 14 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, OR 15 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT 17 ECF No. 1 18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, raises numerous violations of his constitutional rights against 22 twenty defendants. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. He cannot proceed with so many unrelated claims against 23 multiple defendants. I will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. I will also grant 24 his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or 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 Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that he slipped on a puddle in the Mule Creek State Prison gym in 22 December of 2020 and injured his knee. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff alleges that all twenty 23 defendants were deliberately indifferent in failing to provide timely medical care for that injury. 24 Id. He does not explain how each defendant was involved in or responsible for his care, however. 25 Plaintiff next alleges that, after he filed grievances concerning his medical care, various 26 defendants retaliated against him, including by writing a false disciplinary violation against him. 27 Id. He claims that his due process rights were violated at the ensuing disciplinary hearing at 28 which he was convicted. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff then alludes to other shortcomings in medical care; I 1 | cannot tell whether these apparent issues are related to his knee injury or some other ailment. /d. 2 | at 8. Multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong in separate lawsuits. See 3 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus 4 | multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 5 | joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). I will give plaintiff leave to amend and 6 | submit a complaint that contains only related claims. 7 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 8 | the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 9 | banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 10 || reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 11 | filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, 12 | as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s 13 | involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” 14 | and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 15 || recommend that this action be dismissed. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 18 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 19 | Amended Complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 20 | the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 21 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( q oy — Dated: _ April 27, 2022 □□ 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28