(PC) Cross v. Sacramento Jail Medical ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY CROSS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02016-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 SACRAMENTO JAIL MEDICAL, et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 17 (2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE 19 DISMISSED 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 Plaintiff Jeffery Cross is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 24 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The majority of his complaint is illegible, which makes it 25 difficult to assess whether it states a cognizable claim. I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file 26 an amended complaint that sets forth his allegations in a legible manner. I will also grant his 27 application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff’s complaint is nearly impossible to read. See ECF No. 1. While I can discern 26 certain words and phrases, the densely-packed writing and tight cursive letters make 27 understanding his claims impractical absent guesswork, in which I decline to engage. The 28 complaint indicates that plaintiff is attempting to assert Eighth Amendment excessive force and 1 | medical deliberate indifference claims. Id. at 3-5 (checking boxes for excessive force and 2 || medical care). He appears to allege that unidentified police officers dislocated his shoulder, and 3 | that he was subsequently evaluated by a nurse. However, I am unable to discern either the 4 | specific factual basis for each of plaintiff's claims or how each defendant was involved in 5 | allegedly violating his rights. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint cannot proceed past screening. I 6 | will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be 7 | dismissed. 8 I also advise him that if he chooses to amend, he must write legibly. An amended 9 | complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 10 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete 11 | onits face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an 12 || amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an 13 | amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege 14 | each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 15 || Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 16 | amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 19 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 20 | complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 21 | option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 22 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 23 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ May 10, 2022 □□ 27 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28