(PC)Haywood v. Stoufflet ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CAMERON L. HAYWOOD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02401-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 11 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION 12 STOUFFLET, et al., THAT IT BE DISMISSED; OR 13 Defendants. (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 ECF No. 11 15 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to 20 adequate medical care by ignoring his claims that he was suicidal and going to engage in self- 21 harm. ECF No. 11 at 5. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, does not comply federal pleading 22 standards. I will give him leave to amend. 23 Screening Order 24 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 26 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 27 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 II. Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that the ten defendants, three of whom are named only as “Does,” 22 violated his Eighth Amendment rights by ignoring his claims that he was suicidal and about to 23 engage in self-harm. ECF No. 11 at 4-12. Plaintiff has failed, however, to satisfy federal 24 pleading standards. Rather than explain his interactions with each individual defendant in detail, 25 plaintiff has alleged that each ignored him in essentially same way. He has drafted what is best 26 described as a boilerplate paragraph, although handwritten and varying slightly, into which he has 27 inserted the name of each defendant. See, e.g., id. at 5-6. As such, the allegations amount to the 28 sort of formulaic labels and conclusions that the Supreme Court has deemed insufficient. See Bell 1 | Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). It may be that each of these ten defendants was 2 | alerted to plaintiff's predicament in the same way and responded identically. That does not, 3 | however, permit plaintiff to offer the same boilerplate pleadings as to each of the ten defendants 4 | whom he seeks to sue. Otherwise, a defendant could draft a single paragraph of allegations and 5 | attribute it to any number of defendants without needing to describe his allegations against each 6 | with any particularity. 7 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these shortcomings. If he decides 8 | todo so, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 9 | County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 10 | complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. 11 Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves 12 | any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need 13 | to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 14 | complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 15 | number. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 18 | complaint or state his intent to stand by the current complaint, subjecting to a recommendation of 19 || dismissal for failure to state a claim. 20 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ August 5, 2022 Q_-——— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28