(PC) Maestas v. Sacramento County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY V. MAESTAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00665-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. TO THIS ACTION 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 15 Defendants. COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO 16 STATE A CLAIM 17 ECF No. 24 18 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 21 Plaintiff Randy Maestas proceeds on this second amended complaint, alleging that various 22 defendants at the Sacramento County Jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him 23 adequate medical care. ECF No. 24. His allegations, however, are difficult to understand and do 24 not adequately put any defendant on notice of the claims against him or her. In my last screening 25 order, I warned plaintiff that this would be his final opportunity to amend before I recommended 26 that this action be dismissed. See ECF No. 23 at 3. 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a pro se litigant’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 4 The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is 5 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 6 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff's allegations could be described as an uncontextualized jumble of names, 3 | position titles, and injuries. In his first claim, he references a hernia injury, a nervous breakdown, 4 | and unspecified problems with his ribs and kidney. ECF No. 24 at 3. He does not connect the 5 | alleged failures to treat these conditions to any of the listed defendants. Plaintiffs other two 6 | claims, involving a broken nose and complications from hernia surgery, are no more viable. 7 | While Iam sympathetic to plaintiff's allegations of poor care and the litany of ailments that are 8 | alleged to have afflicted him, I cannot serve this complaint. No defendant could be reasonably 9 || expected to understand, from this complaint, how he or she is alleged to have violated plaintiff s 10 | rights. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (observing that the purpose of the 11 | complaint is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds 12 | upon which it rests”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 13 I find that leave to amend would be futile. This is plaintiffs third complaint, and he is no 14 | closer to meeting the federal pleading standards. 15 It is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action. 16 Further, [RECOMMEND that plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 24, be 17 || dismissed without leave to amend. 18 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 19 | case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 20 | these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. That 21 | document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 22 | The presiding district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 23 | § 636(b)1)(C). 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | q Sty — Dated: _ August 8, 2022 Q_-——— 27 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE