(PC) Hill v. Lynch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYMEYON HILL Case No. 2:22-cv-00342-JDP (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 9 v. PAUPERIS 10 JEFF LYNCH, et al., SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 11 Defendants. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION 12 THAT IT BE DISMISSED; OR 13 (2) FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 ECF Nos. 6 & 7 15 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a civil detainee, alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 20 ignoring his inhumane conditions of confinement. This claim is not adequately plead, but I will 21 give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Additionally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. 23 Screening Order 24 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen a pro se litigant’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is 27 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 28 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b). 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 II. Analysis 19 Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by ignoring a 20 leak in the roof of his cell through which unsanitary water and raw sewage is leaking. ECF No. 6 21 at 4-5. These circumstances, taken as true, raise a potentially viable conditions of confinement 22 claim. Plaintiff has failed, however, to adequately allege how each defendant personally violated 23 his rights. Instead, he simply alleges that he “notified” the five listed defendants of the conditions 24 and that they took no action. Id. at 3-4. This is the sort of broad, conclusory allegation that the 25 Supreme Court has deemed insufficient to comply with the pleading standards of the Federal 26 Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To suffice, a 27 complaint must provide enough detail to put each defendant on notice as to how he or she is 28 personally alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights. Here, adequate pleading demands that 1 | plaintiff allege how he interacted with each of the named defendants. He should explain when 2 | and what he told each defendant about his conditions of confinement and how each responded. 3 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these shortcomings. If he decides 4 | to do so, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 5 | County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 6 | complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. 7 | Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves 8 | any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need 9 || to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 10 | complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 11 | number. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 14 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 15 | complaint or state his intent to stand by the current complaint, subjecting to a recommendation of 16 | dismissal for failure to state a claim. 17 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ July 18, 2022 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28