(PC) Shafihie v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARASH SHAFIHIE, No. 2:23-cv-01436-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Notwithstanding payment of the filing fee, the court must screen plaintiff’s complaint in 28 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 1 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 2 state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 3 is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Discussion 25 Plaintiff alleges in Claim 1 that unidentified institutional staff have (1) invaded his privacy 26 by placing a listening device in his housing quarters, (2) retaliated against him, (3) harassed him, 27 and (4) disseminated audio and video footage of him “to the masses.” ECF No. 1 at 4. In Claim 28 2, plaintiff alleges that California Health Care Facility psychiatrist defendant Suryadevara 1 Vallabh unlawfully took a blood sample from him on March 10, 2023 “for personal gain, power, 2 profit under the pretense of medical care,” and that unidentified other institutional staff have 3 threatened him with death and otherwise harassed him. Id. at 5. In Claim 3, plaintiff alleges that 4 defendant John Doe, also a psychiatrist, threatened him with death on May 19, 2023 because 5 plaintiff refused to provide a blood sample. Id. at 6. “On another incident, employee D. 6 Minnatee physically threatened me for filing a grievance against his employee Lisa Hertenstein.” 7 Id. Additionally, on occasions too numerous to list, unidentified staff members have used the 8 prison disciplinary process “to threaten, harass, and delay my release date for personal gain and 9 profit.” Id. 10 A sufficiently plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of the 11 claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Claim 1 and some 12 allegations contained within Claims 2 and 3 fail to specify how any particular defendant was 13 involved in violating plaintiff’s federal statutory or constitutional rights. Vague allegations that 14 do not allege conduct of a specific, identifiable defendant cannot survive screening. 15 In addition to Suryadevara Vallabh, the caption of plaintiff’s complaint names as 16 defendants the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Jeffrey Macomber, Gina 17 Jones, the City of Stockton, Quest Diagnostics Sacramento, and J. Guajardo. As the body of the 18 complaint contains no factual allegations against these individuals and entities, claims against 19 them will be dismissed with leave to amend. 20 We are left with three instances in which plaintiff has alleged misconduct by an 21 identifiable defendant: (1) Dr. Suryadevara Vallabh’s March 10, 2023 unlawful taking of a blood 22 specimen from plaintiff; (2) John Doe’s death threat to plaintiff on May 19, 2023 for refusing to 23 provide a blood specimen, and (3) D. Minnatee’s threat against plaintiff on unidentified date in 24 retaliation for plaintiff’s filing of a grievance against another employee. While the first two 25 instances may be related (it is difficult to tell from the sparse allegations), the third does not bear 26 them any relation, at least not on the facts provided by plaintiff. It is well-settled that a claimant 27 //// 28 //// 1 may not proceed with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: 2 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 3 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 4 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 5 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 6 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims against the psychiatrist 7 defendants, one the one hand, and his claim against defendant Minnatee, on the other, encompass 8 discrete events involving separate defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. 9 Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies 10 identified herein. 11 Leave to Amend 12 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 13 amended complaint it should observe the following: 14 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 15 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 16 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 17 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 18 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 19 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 20 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 21 in the amended complaint. 22 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 24 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 25 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 26 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 27 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 28 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 1 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 2 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 3 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 4 || 1967)). 5 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 6 | fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 7 | procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. 8 Conclusion 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 11 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 12 accordance with the notice to the custodial agency filed concurrently herewith; 13 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 14 from the date of service of this order; and 15 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 16 stated herein. Lp /Zzoe 18 || Dated: November 28, 2023 Zo} hil 7 19 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28