(PS) Mendez v. Sacramento Police Officers ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTORIA REYES MENDEZ Case No. 2:21-cv-01965-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICERS, ECF No. 2 15 Defendant. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HER COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, OR 17 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 ECF No. 1 19 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against Sacramento Police Officers, 22 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Her complaint fails to state a claim. I 23 will give plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending dismissal. I will grant 24 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing 25 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 26 Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights co mplaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement showing that she is 18 entitled to relief as required by the Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, the 19 complaint is largely unintelligible and difficult to follow, consisting mostly of disjointed 20 allegations. See generally ECF No. 1. 21 Plaintiff alleges that at an unidentified place or time, Sacramento Police Officer Radcliff, 22 badge number 254, searched her while she was not on parole or probation. ECF No. 1 at 6. 23 Additionally, she states that she has requested a “stay away order” from the Sacramento Police 24 Department because on August 7, 2021, officers told her that they had received complaints abouts 25 her dogs barking excessively. She further alleges that an unidentified security officer cut off her 26 dog’s collar, killing the dog. Finally, plaintiff alleges that she took care of Victor Allen Sfukalo, 27 a war veteran, for three years, but was not notified when he passed away. Id. at 6-7. 28 1 The complaint neither alleges a specific cause of action nor includes facts that support a 2 cognizable legal claim against a specific defendant. Although pro se pleadings are liberally 3 construed, plaintiff must still identify each defendant’s actions that support her claims. See Jones 4 v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at 5 least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the 6 plaintiff’s claim.”). Additionally, the allegations must be short and plain, simple, and describe the 7 relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); 8 Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 10 action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 11 will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 12 Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 13 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 14 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 15 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 16 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended 17 Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended 18 complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 19 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 21 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 22 amended complaint or advise the court she wishes to stand by her current complaint. If she 23 selects the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 24 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 25 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ December 16, 2022 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28