(PC) Muhammad v. Chavez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, Case No. 2:21-cv-01848-TLN-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 v. PAUPERIS 12 CHAVEZ, et al., ECF No. 2 13 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 14 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL OF 15 CLAIMS AND PARTIES, OR 16 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 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 thirty-eight defendants. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. He cannot proceed with 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 brings several unrelated claims. 22 First, he alleges that two correctional officers at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), 23 defendants Chavez and Gardner, failed to protect him from Covid-19 by refusing to social 24 distance or to wear masks. ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff claims that these defendants ignored proper 25 Covid-19 precautions between November 2020 and the filing of this complaint. Id. He alleges 26 that he contracted the disease in January 2021 and attributes his infection, at least in part, to the 27 actions of these defendants. Id. 28 Second, and more broadly, plaintiff claims that various supervisory defendants, including 1 Warden Covello, knew that “several” employees at MCSP were not following Covid-19 2 preventative procedures. Id. at 8. He claims that Covello and the other named supervisory 3 defendants knew by way of “updates” that procedures were not being followed, but he provides 4 no specifics. Instead, he alleges numerous shortcomings in MCSP’s Covid-19-related 5 preventative procedures, but never specifically identifies how each of the named defendants knew 6 about those failings. More than once, he lists various names and, without any attempt to parse 7 individual actions or responsibility, declares each responsible for the institution’s failure to 8 manage the disease. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 11 (listing numerous defendants and referring to a 9 “an untold vast number” of unnamed defendants, all of whom enabled a lax isolation policy at 10 MCSP). Absent any contextual allegations, these claims amount to little more than the sort of 11 “defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” that the Supreme Court has held to be 12 insufficient under Rule 8. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 13 Third, plaintiff alleges that unnamed defendants failed to care for him properly once he 14 contracted the disease. ECF No. 1 at 13. He claims that they did not take his symptoms seriously 15 and simply told him to stay hydrated. Id. 16 Fourth, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights by exposing him to “an 17 unknown magnitude” of “industrial and domestic” sewage. Id. at 16. Responsibility for these 18 allegations is difficult to parse trace, since plaintiff names not only correctional officials but also 19 state and local agencies as defendants. Id. 20 Multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong in separate lawsuits. 21 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple 22 claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with 23 unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). I will give plaintiff leave to amend and submit a 24 complaint that contains only related claims. If he fails to winnow his claims, I may add or drop 25 parties as required so that this suit may proceed. 26 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 27 the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 28 banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 1 | reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 2 | filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, 3 | as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s 4 | involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” 5 | and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 6 | recommend that this action be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 9 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 10 | Amended Complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 11 | the latter option, I will recommend that parties and claims be dismissed so that this action can 12 | proceed on only related claims. 13 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 14 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ May 10, 2022 q_-—_— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28