(PC) Gaskins v. Mule Creek State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSEPH GASKINS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00459-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 12 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 13 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL; OR 14 Defendant. (2) FILE AN AMENDED 15 COMPLAINT 16 ECF No. 18 17 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges in his first amended complaint that he was transferred 21 from Mule Creek State Prison to Coalinga State Hospital without his personal property. ECF No. 22 18 at 3. As in his initial complaint, he does not name any individual responsible for this 23 deprivation and names only Mule Creek State Prison as a defendant. He has not made out a 24 cognizable claim. I will give plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint before 25 recommending that this action be dismissed. 26 Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 28 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 Analysis 22 Plaintiff has failed to cure the defects in his initial complaint. As noted in my prior 23 screening order, a claim under § 1983 for deprivation of property does not arise “unless and until 24 the State fails to provide” an adequate process to remedy the claimed deprivation of property. See 25 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125-26 (1990). California law provides adequate post- 26 deprivation remedies for confiscation of property. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 27 (9th Cir. 1994). Additionally, plaintiff has not named any new defendants, and as noted my prior 28 order, Mule Creek State Prison is not a viable defendant in a § 1983 action. See Allison v. 1 | California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969). 2 I will give plaintiff leave to amend and an opportunity to show, if he can, why this action 3 | should still proceed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 4 | will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 5 | Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 6 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 7 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 8 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 9 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 10 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 12 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either advise the court 13 | of his intent to stand by his initial complaint or file an amended complaint. If he selects the latter 14 | option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 15 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 16 3. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ November 29, 2022 Q_-——— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28