(PC) Springfield v. CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 2:23-cv-00594-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against defendants alleging that they violated his 22 rights by failing to provide him with adequate dental care and by falsifying medical documents 23 that impacted his medical access and custody classification. ECF No. 1 at 13. His 24 allegations against defendants Tan and Williams for failing to provide him with adequate medical 25 care are suitable to proceed. His other claims, for the reasons state below, are not. Plaintiff may 26 either proceed only with his cognizable claims, or delay serving any defendant and file an 27 amended complaint. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4. 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 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 As noted above, plaintiff alleges that defendants Tan and Williams failed to provide him 3 with adequate care for dental issues he suffered in 2021 while incarcerated at the California 4 Health Care Facility in Stockton. ECF No. 1 at 4-7. These Eighth Amendment claims are 5 cognizable and may proceed past screening. His claims against the prison itself and against the 6 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, by contrast, fail. Neither is a “person” 7 within the meaning of section 1983. See Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 8 (9th Cir. 1969). And plaintiff’s allegations that Tan and Williams violated his Fourteenth 9 Amendment rights by falsifying documents that impacted his medical access and classification 10 are not cognizable. See Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1987); see also 11 Gadsden v. Gehris, No. 20cv0470-WQH (DEB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177509, 2020 WL 12 5748094, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2020) (“The allegations of the filing of false disciplinary 13 charges by itself does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because federal due process 14 protections are contained in the ensuing disciplinary proceedings themselves.”). 15 Plaintiff may either proceed only with his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 16 Tan and Williams or he may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended 17 complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 18 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be 19 complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once 20 an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in 21 an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and 22 allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled 23 “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. 26 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either indicate his 27 desire to proceed only with the claims identified above as cognizable or he must submit an 28 amended complaint. If he fails to do either, I may recommend that this action be dismissed for 1 | failure to prosecute. 2 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 19, 2023 Q_——_. 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28