(PC) Davis v. Hill ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LLOYD CLIFTON DAVIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00407-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 12 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 13 RICK HILL, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND 14 Defendants. PARTIES, OR 15 (2) FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 ECF No. 12 17 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings various claims related to interference with his mail. 22 These claims, described below, cannot proceed jointly, and I will give plaintiff a final opportunity 23 to amend his complaint so that includes only related claims. If he declines to file an amended 24 complaint, I will permit his first viable claim to proceed past screening and will recommend that 25 other unrelated parties and claims be dismissed. 26 27 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 described above, plaintiff brings various separate and unrelated claims related to 3 interference with his prison mail. These claims bear insufficient factual and legal relation to each 4 other and cannot proceed together. 5 First, plaintiff alleges that, in February 2019, an unnamed correctional officer interfered 6 with mail that contained confidential medical information. ECF No. 12 at 5-6. Second, plaintiff 7 alleges that he told defendant Johnson about interference with legal mail that he had sent to an 8 attorney’s office in December 2019. Id. at 9. I cannot tell if the complaint is implicating Johnson 9 in that interference or if he was merely informed about it after the fact. Third, plaintiff alleges 10 that on an unspecified date defendants Herrera and Hang opened an item of his legal mail outside 11 his presence. Id. at 16. There are other allegations of mail problems, but I cannot tell whether 12 those problems are offered as separate claims or which defendants are alleged to have contributed 13 to those problems. 14 These claims, though all concern legal mail, appear to concern separate instances of mail 15 interference, and there is no indication in the complaint that the named defendants acted together 16 across the alleged violations. Additionally, it is difficult to tell whether some defendants are 17 alleged to have violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights at all. As noted above, plaintiff alleges 18 that Johnson was informed of the interference, but plaintiff does not state whether he was 19 involved in it. I note that plaintiff does offer the sweeping allegation that “defendants have been 20 impeding [his] access to the courts and impeding [him] from obtaining representation of counsel.” 21 Id. at 15. But this is insufficient to put each defendant on notice as to how his or her own actions 22 are alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights. 23 Multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong in separate lawsuits. 24 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple 25 claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with 26 unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). As these claims cannot proceed jointly, plaintiff 27 should file an amended complaint that contains only related claims. He is advised that the 28 amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 1 | 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be 2 | complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once 3 | an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in 4 | an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and 5 || allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled 6 | “Third Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. This will be the final 7 | opportunity to amend that I give plaintiff. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 9 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 10 | complaint or advise the court of his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a 11 | recommendation that claims or parties be dismissed. 12 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | 1 Sty — Dated: _ December 13, 2022 Q_-——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28