(PC) Rojas v. Lopez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD ROJAS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01977-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 E. LOPEZ, et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 17 RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL; 18 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 19 COMPLAINT 20 ECF No. 1 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that psychiatric provider and correctional officer 26 defendants are recording him, threatening to sexually assault him, looking through his social 27 media, reaching out to his family, and contaminating his food. These allegations, which, as 28 articulated by plaintiff, border on the fanciful, do not comport with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 1 Civil Procedure. I will give plaintiff leave to amend so that he may better explain his allegations. 2 I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 3 Screening Order 4 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 5 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 6 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 7 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 relief. Id. 10 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 13 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 15 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 16 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 17 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 18 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 19 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 20 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 22 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 23 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 25 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 26 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 As noted above, plaintiff alleges that numerous psychiatric providers and correctional 3 officers have conspired against him by variously threatening to sexually assault him, trawling his 4 social media for information to use against him, recording his conversations, and generally 5 attempting to sabotage his chances for release. The specifics of these allegations, owing to the 6 complaint’s lack of organization and cramped handwriting, are difficult to grasp. And even 7 where the complaint is comprehensible, it does not specifically allege how each defendant was 8 responsible for the alleged transgressions against plaintiff. No defendant could reasonably be 9 expected to read the complaint and as a result to be put on notice as to the claims against him or 10 her. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (“All that is required [by Rule 11 8(a)] are sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.”). 12 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will 13 supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 14 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 15 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 16 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 17 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 18 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 19 Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 22 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 23 complaint or advise the court of his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a 24 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 25 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 26 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 20, 2023 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