(PC) Hopson v. Kings County Jail ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN JOEL HOPSON, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1555 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO ) STATE A CLAIM, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 14 KINGS COUNTY, et al., ) LEAVE TO AMEND ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 14) ) 16 17 Ryan Joel Hopson seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while 18 housed at Kings County Jail. (Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 20 granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 10.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, after Plaintiff 21 informed the Court that he wished to “stand on [his] complaint.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) 22 After Plaintiff elected to not file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge reiterated the 23 findings made in the initial screening order. (Doc. 14.) The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff’s 24 complaint is subject to dismissal because it raises numerous unrelated claims against different 25 defendants, which cannot be combined into one lawsuit.” (Id. at 6.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 26 observed that Plaintiff “names eleven different defendants concerning different events on different 27 dates spanning several months and involving such unrelated issues as access to toilet and toilet plunger, 28 program time and phone usage, and inadequate medical care.” (Id. at 6-7.) In addition, the magistrate 1 judge found that some claims cannot proceed because “Plaintiff failed to establish the causal link 2 between certain defendants and the claimed constitutional violations.” (Id. at 8.) Further, the magistrate 3 judge found that claims against Kings County Jail, Hanford Sheriff Department, and Wellpath could 4 not proceed because “Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that actions of these three defendants 5 . . . were the result of an official policy or custom.” (Id. at 10.) Similarly, the magistrate judge found 6 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable conditions-of-confinement claim, a claim for inadequate medical 7 care, or a claim for violation of his First Amendment right. (Id. at 12–16.) Therefore, the magistrate 8 judge recommended Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed “for failure to state a claim,” and the action be 9 closed. (Id. at 16.) 10 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and recommendations, indicating he was 11 “objecting to dismissing this action for failure to state a claim.” (Doc. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff “ask[s] for 12 more time and the proper paper work to amend [his] claim.” (Id.) Significantly, Plaintiff does not 13 dispute the determination that he failed to state a cognizable claim in his initial complaint. 14 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 15 carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the finding that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable 16 claim is supported by the record and proper analysis. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff now 17 requests leave to amend. It appears that, despite the Court’s warning in the screening order, Plaintiff 18 did not appreciate that choosing to stand on his complaint would not only result in a recommendation 19 of dismissal of the complaint, but the entire action could be closed. 20 Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely 21 given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate 22 decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 23 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (alterations, internal quotation marks omitted). When dismissing a complaint, “a 24 district court should grant leave to amend … unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 25 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the 26 magistrate judge initially dismissed the complaint with leave to amend (Doc. 10 at 18-19), the Court 27 declines to find amendment is futile at this time. Accordingly, the Court finds leave to amend is 28 appropriate, and the Court declines to adopt the recommendation to close the case. Plaintiff will be 1 || granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies previously □□□□□□□□□ 2 || by the Court. Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint shall be captioned “First Amended 3 || Complaint” and bear the case number in the caption. 4 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 7, 2024 (Doc. 10) are ADOPTED in 6 part. 7 2. The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim. 8 3. Plaintiffs request for leave to amend is GRANTED. 9 4. Plaintiff SHALL file any amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of 10 this order. 11 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint fo1 12 with this Order. 13 Plaintiff is informed that failure to file an amended complaint will result in the action 14 being dismissed and closed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court 15 order. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _ September 16, 2024 ( Li pA L. warm 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28