(PC) Ramsey v. Zetterholm ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL C. RAMSEY, No. 2:24-cv-0034 KJM CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. ZETTERHOLM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge recommended that this 19 action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) On 20 May 7, 2024, plaintiff, “a paraplegic with limited mobility and medical complications,” filed 21 objections stating that he has been unable to respond to court orders based on his disabling 22 medical issues, his transfers to various prisons deprived him of his property on more than two 23 occasions, he “has been waiting on prison officials[’] administrative remedies for further . . . 24 evidence to present his case,” and he did not receive the findings and recommendations until 25 April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 12 at 2-3, 5.) He asks that his time to respond be reconsidered. (ECF 26 No. 12 at 3.) 27 Good cause appearing, the findings and recommendations are vacated, and plaintiff is 28 granted an extension of time to file an amended complaint. 1 Motion for Stay 2 Appended to plaintiff’s objections is a document styled, “Motion for Stay in Abeyance,” 3 in which plaintiff seeks to stay this action while he “collect[s] more evidence also, to complete 4 grievance on additional issue.” (ECF No. 12 at 6.) 5 Governing Standards 6 “[T]he decision to grant a stay . . . is ‘generally left to the sound discretion of district 7 courts.’” Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 74 (2013) (quoting Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 8 473 (2007)). However, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need,” and 9 issuing a stay without taking any account of the nonmovant's interests in proceeding can be an 10 abuse of discretion. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). In determining whether to stay 11 proceedings, courts generally “consider[ ] the following factors: (1) judicial economy; (2) the 12 moving party’s hardship; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.” Single Chip Sys. 13 Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2007). 14 Discussion 15 The Court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay of this action is warranted 16 for the following reasons. First, plaintiff is not required to submit evidence with his amended 17 complaint. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 18 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 19 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 20 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 21 In other words, plaintiff is required to set forth facts showing that his constitutional rights were 22 violated by a particular defendant.1 While detailed factual allegations are not required, 23 1 Indeed, “[t]he complaints in the official Appendix of Forms are dramatically short and plain. 24 For example, the standard negligence complaint consists of three short paragraphs: 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 25 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who was 26 then crossing said highway. 27 3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body and 28 mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one 1 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 2 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 3 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 4 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5 570). 6 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 7 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for 8 more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 9 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. 10 11 Ashcroft, 566 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions 12 can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are 13 not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. 14 Second, although plaintiff claims in his request for more time that he is “dealing with pain 15 and disabling medical issues” and is currently housed in a hospital bed (ECF No. 12 at 2), 16 plaintiff does not indicate whether such issues are permanent or temporary and does not state how 17 long he anticipates being housed in a hospital bed, if he knows. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate 18 that extensions of time are insufficient to address any additional inability to timely file an 19 amended complaint. 20 Further, plaintiff’s statement that he needs additional time to complete a grievance is 21 concerning because plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative remedies as to each claim 22 before bringing such claim in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Prison Litigation Reform 23 Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison 24 conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, 25 thousand dollars. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of _____ 26 dollars and costs. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 9. This complaint fully sets forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery. It can be read in seconds and answered in 28 minutes.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 2 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). There is no “special circumstances” exception to the PLRA’s 3 rule of exhaustion prior to filing “any action.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 640 (2016) (quoting 4 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007)). If the court 5 concludes that plaintiff has failed to exhaust available remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal 6 without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). See Jones, 549 7 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005). 8 Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has not sufficiently 9 supported his alleged claim of hardship. 10 As to the potential prejudice to the non-moving party, it is difficult for the Court to 11 evaluate prejudice without an operative complaint on file. However, the allegations in the 12 original complaint were based on incidents in July and September of 2023, and the recollections 13 of the four named defendants would likely be affected by a stay of this action, and they have not 14 yet been provided notice of its filing. Thus, there is some potential prejudice to the individuals 15 named as defendants in the original complaint if a stay of this action is granted. 16 Two factors weigh in favor of denying the stay; therefore, the Court is not required to 17 address judicial economy. The motion for stay is denied without prejudice. 18 Amended Complaint 19 Because plaintiff is currently housed in a hospital bed, the Court grants plaintiff an 20 additional sixty days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the February 15, 21 2024 order (ECF No. 7). Such order provided plaintiff with the elements required to demonstrate 22 violations of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments and should assist plaintiff in 23 preparing his amended complaint.2 24 2 Plaintiff is also advised of the following rules. A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple 25 defendants in one action where “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 26 transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated claims against different defendants must 27 be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended, in part, “to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit 28 produce[s].” George, 507 F.3d at 607. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) are vacated; 3 2. Plaintiffs motion for stay (ECF No. 12 at 6) is denied without prejudice; 4 3. Plaintiffis granted sixty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 5 || that complies with the February 15, 2024 order (ECF No. 7); and 6 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the February 15, 2024 7 || order (ECF No. 7) as well as the form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 8 9 || Dated: May 13, 2024 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 || /1/ams0034.vac 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28