(PC) Hill v. Escobar et.al. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CYMEYON HILL, Case No. 2:21-cv-02118-JAM-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 11 v. PAUPERIS 12 ESCOBAR, et al., ECF No. 3 13 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 14 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 15 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND 16 PARTIES, OR 17 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 ECF No. 1 19 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 22 Plaintiff, a civil detainee, alleges that defendants violated his rights by both placing him in 23 a cell block where he had safety concerns and ignoring his requests for mental health treatment. 24 ECF No. 1 at 2-3. The two claims are insufficiently related to proceed in the same suit. I will 25 give leave to amend before recommending that parties or claims be dismissed. Plaintiff has also 26 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which I will grant. ECF No. 3. 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 Plaintiff is a civil detainee and, thus, his complaint must be screened under 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Koch v. Price, No. 1:18-cv-01693-DAD-SAB (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5 7324, *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) (“Plaintiff is a civil detainee rather than a prisoner, he is 6 proceeding in forma pauperis and the complaint is therefore subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(e)(2)(B).”). Under that section, a court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 8 claimant has brought a claim that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which 9 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 10 relief.” 11 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 13 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 14 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 16 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 17 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 18 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 19 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 20 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 21 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 22 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 23 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 24 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 25 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 26 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 27 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that, in October 2021, while he was detained at California State Prison- 3 Sacramento, defendant correctional officers Escobar, Rios, and Bonache violated his rights by 4 placing him in “B-Facility,” an area of the prison about which he had safety concerns. ECF No. 1 5 at 3. He alleges that their intent was to have him assaulted by an officer named Lebeck. Id. at 8. 6 Plaintiff does not allege whether any actual harm from Lebeck or anyone else befell him in the 7 facility, however. Separately, plaintiff alleges that, once he was sent to B-Facility, he became 8 suicidal. Id. He alleges that he told defendant Escobar and a non-defendant officer named Alice 9 that he needed mental health treatment and that they ignored him. Id. These two claims are 10 insufficiently related. It may be assumed that plaintiff’s mental health worsened because of his 11 placement in a facility that he thought dangerous, but the violations at issue in the two claims are 12 factually distinct. Whether correctional officers assigned plaintiff to a dangerous facility is a 13 separate question from whether they ignored his pleas for psychiatric treatment. These two 14 claims cannot, as articulated, proceed in the same suit. Plaintiff must either select one or explain 15 how his claims are sufficiently related so as to proceed together. I will give him leave to amend. 16 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 17 the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 18 banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 19 reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 20 filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, 21 as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s 22 involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” 23 and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 24 recommend that claims or parties be dismissed. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. 27 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an Amended 28 1 | Complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 2 | option, I will recommend that claims or parties be dismissed. 3 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 4 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 6, 2022 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28