(PC) Allen v. Matteson ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR., No. 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. MATTESON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought against 18 multiple defendants employed by California State Prison, Solano (CSP-Solano). ECF No. 1. In 19 addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF Nos. 6 & 7. The court will grant the in forma pauperis application and 21 screen the complaint. 22 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 25 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Screening Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 15 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 18 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 20 678. 21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 26 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 28 //// 1 Screening Order 2 In the instant action, plaintiff, who indicates that he has filed seven prior lawsuits as an 3 inmate, names 20 defendants who worked in various capacities at CSP-Solano over a three-year 4 period. ECF No. 1 at 2-6. His allegations consist of brief statements detailing multiple events at 5 CSP-Solano between March 2021 and May 2023. Id. at 7-20. Plaintiff claims that multiple 6 defendants retaliated against him (Claims 1-2) while others “damaged or disposed of” his 7 personal property (Claim 3). Id. at 7, 12 & 14. He asserts that he did not receive due process in a 8 2021 disciplinary hearing (Claim 4). Id. at 17. Lastly, he asserts that some defendants 9 “perpetrated a fraudulent hearing” in 2022 that resulted in a threat to his safety (Claim 5). Id. at 10 19. 11 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening. First, his allegations largely consist of 12 “naked assertions” or “labels and conclusions,” rather than specific factual allegations that 13 constitute the elements of a cause of action under § 1983. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. As 14 set forth above, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To state a claim under § 1983, a 16 plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the 17 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 18 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual 19 defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal 20 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s 21 wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 22 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). Thus, any claims 23 brought in an amended complaint must be alleged in specific, non-conclusory terms. 24 Second, it is well settled that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims 25 against separate defendants: 26 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 27 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 28 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a 1 single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 2 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the complaint sets forth three years’ 3 worth of allegations that seemingly encompass discrete events and numerous defendants, 4 rendering them ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. 5 Moreover, insofar as plaintiff alleges due process violations arising from the processing of 6 his inmate grievances, he fails to state a claim because there is no protected liberty interest or 7 independent constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. Id.; see 8 also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate 9 constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”). 10 Similarly, insofar as plaintiff alleges due process violations based on damage or loss to 11 property, “[i]t is well established that negligent conduct is ordinarily not enough to state a claim 12 alleging a denial of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Doe v. Beard, 2014 13 WL 3507196, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2014), citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986); 14 Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 15 Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to 16 life, liberty or property. In other words, where a government official is merely negligent in 17 causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required.”). 18 Based on the foregoing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff will be 19 given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein. 20 Leave to Amend 21 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended 22 complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial 23 way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 24 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, 25 participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the 26 alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 27 closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 28 1 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 2 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 4 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 5 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 6 multiple defendants. Id. 7 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 8 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 9 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 10 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 11 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 12 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 13 1967)). 14 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 15 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 16 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 17 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 18 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 19 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 20 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 21 Conclusion 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED; 24 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 25 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 26 concurrently herewith; 27 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 28 of service of this order; and 1 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 3 || Dated: May 23, 2024 ZA LP bee, ot CLHAC_AU, 4 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28