(PS) Roberts v. Bowman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01694-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BRIAN BOWMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint against two medical doctors, Cara Bergamamo and Andrew 18 Williamson; an enforcement analyst with the California Medical Board, Brian Bowman; and a 19 manager of Studio 15 Lock and Key, Ruth Rivera, together with an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. Her complaint, however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to 21 amend her complaint before recommending dismissal. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 27 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 28 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 1 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 2 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 3 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 4 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 5 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 6 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 7 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 8 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 9 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 10 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 11 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 12 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 13 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 14 Analysis 15 Plaintiff’s complaint is incoherent and states no discernible facts supporting a cognizable 16 legal injury. Plaintiff vaguely alleges that she was denied proper medical care. But the factual 17 bases for her claims, whatever they might be, cannot be discerned from the complaint’s 18 unintelligible allegations. See generally ECF No. 1 at 5 (“Due to the gross neglect by the MD 19 Beramo medical recorder number 701014680 she negeclect to do the full test saying I was a 20 mental and bad girl and and said there due to no police. The MD and her coworker stuck in the 21 side of head and stuck me two times in my chest get that n[] out of here. I have I had huge knot 22 and blood in my stool no help because you sin sin aylist neglect.” [sic]); see Jones v. Cmty. 23 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some 24 degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s 25 claim.”).1 26 1 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert medical malpractice, negligence, or another 27 state law claim, the complaint does not establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Notably, the complaint indicates that all parties reside in California. ECF No. 1 at 2-3; see Bautista v. Pan 28 Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The essential elements of diversity 1 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 2 | action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 3 | will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 4 | 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 5 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 6 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 7 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 8 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 9 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 10 | amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is granted. 13 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 14 | complaint or advise the court she wishes to stand by her current complaint. If she selects the 15 | latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 16 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ May 9, 2023 ow—— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 |—§_ ——_—— jurisdiction, including the diverse residence of all parties, must be affirmatively alleged in the 28 | pleadings.”).