- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYLAN R. FOOTE, No. 2:23-cv-00938-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EL DORADO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 19, 2023, plaintiff attempted to file this action; however, his complaint 19 was rejected as unsigned. ECF Nos. 1, 7. The court directed plaintiff to file a signed complaint, 20 which he has done. ECF Nos. 7, 9. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application 21 to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court will grant the in forma 22 pauperis application and screen the complaint. 23 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 24 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 25 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 26 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 28 1 Screening Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 15 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 18 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 20 678. 21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 26 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 28 //// 1 Screening Order 2 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening because it violates Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 8. A sufficiently plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice 4 of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, the 5 court cannot discern plaintiff’s claims from complaint’s allegations, which state in their entirety: 6 Restrict access to court. Violation 14th Amendment. I have been denied access to a 1381 that I filed in 2021 for warrants out of Placer County. I have grieved it 7 twice in two separate incarcerations. I am also denied access to 1389 documents and processing of 1389 IAD by the institution staff. When I try to request 8 anything that has to do with 1389/1381, I am threatened by staff to be moved facilities, limit access to attorney calls, threatened to have disciplinary action 9 taken. There are many other incidents that display El Dorado Sheriffs disregard for my rights and I intend to subpoena all documentation proving so. 10 11 ECF No. 9 at 3. Plaintiff does not elaborate on what a “1381” and “1389” are, how he was denied 12 these items, or how the denial deprived him of access to the courts or violated his 14th 13 Amendment rights. 14 Based on the foregoing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 15 Leave to Amend 16 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended 17 complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial 18 way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 19 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, 20 participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the 21 alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 22 closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 24 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 26 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 27 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 28 multiple defendants. Id. 1 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 2 || without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. 220. This is because an amended 3 | complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 4 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 5 | F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 6 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 7 || 1967)). 8 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 9 | requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 10 || background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 11 || amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 12 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 13 || actually were involved in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 14 | which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 15 Conclusion 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 18 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 19 | in accordance with the notice to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department filed concurrently 20 | herewith; 21 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 22 || of service of this order; and 23 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. Hr 25 | Dated: October 30, 2023 Zot! hie 7 6 LHL 2% EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:23-cv-00938
Filed Date: 10/30/2023
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024