(PC) Trevino v. Sheehan ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TREVINO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. FINDING THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET FEDERAL 14 X. SHEEHAN, et al., PLEADING STANDARDS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 15 Defendants. ECF No. 16 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff brings this action against nine defendants, alleging that they violated his First and 20 Fourth Amendment rights, as well as various state law provisions. ECF No. 16. The complaint, 21 however, is difficult to understand and, for the reasons stated below, does not meet federal 22 pleading standards. I will give plaintiff leave to amend to better articulate his claims. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 The length of plaintiff’s complaint and its lack of organization make it difficult to 3 understand the claims that he seeks to raise. As best I can tell, he begins by alleging that various 4 defendants violated his procedural due process rights by failing to adhere to regulations in 5 handling his administrative appeals. ECF No. 16 at 8-10. Prisoners, however, have no 6 constitutional right to a particular grievance system. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th 7 Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance 8 procedure.”). 9 Then, he claims that his due process rights were violated when he was denied parole under 10 the “Elderly Parole Program.” ECF No. 16 at 16. There is no constitutional right to parole, 11 however. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (“There is no right under the Federal 12 Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States 13 are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners.”). And courts reviewing denial of parole in 14 California have held that due process mandates only two things: an opportunity to be heard and a 15 statement of reasons as to why parole was denied. Andrews v. Martinez, 829 F. App’x 814, 814 16 (9th Cir. 2020). I have done my best to review plaintiff’s lengthy complaint, which runs to fifty- 17 five pages, not including attached exhibits, and I cannot find any explicit allegation that these 18 procedural safeguards were not met. 19 Finally, he appears to allege that the decision to deny him parole is some form of 20 unconstitutional retaliation, but the specifics of this claim are difficult to understand. ECF No. 16 21 at 27-28. 22 At a more fundamental level, the complaint is non-complaint with Rule 8 insofar as it fails 23 to provide a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. Rather than simply alleging how 24 plaintiff was wronged and explaining how each named defendant was responsible, the complaint 25 is interspersed with lengthy citations to case law that obscure rather than illuminate. Such 26 citations should be saved for later motion practice; at this stage, plaintiff should endeavor to file a 27 readable, easily understood complaint. Given that he is suing nine defendants, plaintiff should 28 take pains to organize his claims such that, in a short span of pages, each defendant is apprised of 1 | the claims against him or her. Neither the defendants nor the court should be forced to scour a 2 | lengthy document in an attempt to uncover all possible claims. 3 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that remedies these deficiencies. He is advised 4 | that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 5 | 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled 6 | “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 9 | complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I may recommend that this action be 10 | dismissed. 11 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ May 16, 2024 q_——— 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28