Manuell Rogers v. High Desert State Prison, et al.

Opinion

3 MANUELL ROGERS, Case No.: 2:25-cv-02430-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff Screening Order for Complaint

5 v. ECF No. 1

6 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

7 Defendants

9 Manuell Rogers, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of 10 Corrections, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to 11 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1-1, 1. I will temporarily defer the matter of the filing fee. 12 I now screen Rogers’ civil rights complaint. 14 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an incarcerated 15 person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 16 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 17 claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 18 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), 19 (2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 20 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 21 allege two essential elements: (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of 22 the United States, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 23 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 1 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, the Prison Litigation Reform 2 Act requires a federal court to dismiss an incarcerated person’s claim if “the allegation of 3 poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 4 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief 6 can be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies 7 the same standard under § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended 8 complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given 9 leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from 10 the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. 11 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. 13 Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is 14 proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that

15 would entitle them to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making 16 this determination, the court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint 17 and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 18 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent 19 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 20 While Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more 21 than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A 22 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 23 A reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations] that, because they 1 are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 2 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 3 must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, 4 a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

5 entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . 6 . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience 7 and common sense.” Id. 8 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may be dismissed sua 9 sponte if the claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on 10 legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit 11 or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based 12 on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 13 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

15 Rogers sues High Desert State Prison (HDSP), North Nevada Correctional Center 16 (NNCC), Jeremy Bean, and John Henley based on events that occurred during his incarceration 17 at HDSP. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Rogers brings three counts and seeks monetary and injunctive 18 relief. Id. at 3-6. The complaint suffers from multiple, related defects. 19 As an initial matter, the complaint appears to bring many improperly joined claims in a 20 single suit. A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the 22 same defendant. Rule 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit where 23 the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions” and 1 “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, 2 unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. 3 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[a] buckshot complaint 4 that would be rejected if filed by a free person—say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the

5 plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, 6 all in different transactions—should be rejected if filed by a prisoner”). These rules are not only 7 intended to avoid confusion that arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that inmates 8 pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent inmates from circumventing the three 9 strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 10 Rather than explain any single claim in detail, the complaint is made up of single 11 sentence bullet points of many different claims. Count I includes eight bullet points, the first 12 four of which are: “I have been denied access to a wheelchair on a continuous basis,” “I have 13 been denied adequate medical treatment,” “Denied a transfer from HDSP to NNCC due to points 14 being high,” and “was subjected to systematic discrimination.” These brief allegations would

15 appear to be about four separate, unrelated claims. Although some of the bullet points may 16 overlap or go to the same claim, there does not appear to be any organization to make clear 17 where one claim ends an another begins. Without more detail about each individual claim and 18 the defendants involved in each claim, I cannot determine which, if any, of the claims can 19 properly be joined in a single case. 20 I advise Rogers that each claim that is raised in any amended complaint must be 21 permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Rogers may state a single claim against a single 22 defendant. Rogers may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same 23 defendant under Rule 18. Rogers may also add any additional claims against other defendants if 1 those claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as his 2 original claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 3 Claims may not be joined merely because they occurred in the same prison, the violators 4 had the same supervisor, or the claims are based on the same type of constitutional violation.

5 Rogers may not evade these requirements merely by alleging that he told the same person about 6 them or by making conclusory allegations that all the defendants are engaging in a conspiracy or 7 campaign of harassment. Rogers also may not evade these requirements by including multiple 8 causes of action in a part of the complaint form reserved for one claim. 9 In addition to the issue of improperly joined claims, the complaint fails to abide by the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning clarity of a complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 12 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, 13 concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A district court has the power to dismiss a 14 complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180

15 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). If the 16 factual elements of a cause of action are not organized into a short and plain statement of a 17 particular claim, a district court may dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8. Sparling v. 18 Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, under Rule 10(b), “each 19 claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” 20 The brief bullet points included in the complaint are not sufficient to show that Rogers is 21 entitled to relief. For example, Rogers states that he has been subject to systemic discrimination. 22 But Rogers provides no details about the nature of the discrimination, when it happened, or who 23 was responsible for the alleged discrimination. Brief conclusory allegations about discrimination 1 are not sufficient to show that Rogers is entitled to relief. Although Rogers does not need to 2 provide every detail of the alleged violations, he must allege enough specific facts to show who 3 violated his rights and how. Additionally, Rogers must separate claims based on separate 4 incidents into separate counts so that the court and the defendants can understood what claims he

5 is trying to bring. 6 Furthermore, the complaint does not provide specific facts about any of the defendants. 7 Rogers names HDSP, NNCC, Warden Jeremy Bean, and Warden John Henley as defendants. 8 HDSP and NNCC are inanimate buildings, not a persons or entity subject to liability. See Allen 9 v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr., 2:10-CV-00857-RLH, 2011 WL 197201, *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 20, 2011) 10 (finding that “[t]he law defines persons as including natural persons (i.e., human beings) as well 11 as corporations and political subdivisions. However, objects such as buildings do not fit within 12 this definition.”). Therefore, Rogers cannot state a colorable claim against HDSP and NNCC so 13 I dismiss them from the case with prejudice as amendment would be futile. 14 As for defendants Bean and Henley, who are both listed as wardens, Rogers appears to

15 name them because of their roles as supervisors. But a defendant is liable under 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983 “only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 17 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his 18 subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations 19 and failed to act to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under [§]1983.” Id.; 20 see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (holding that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is 21 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official 22 defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”). 23 1 Because the complaint does not include any allegations about Bean and Henley, it cannot state a 2 colorable claim against either of them, so I dismiss both of them from the case without prejudice. 4 Rogers is granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of the

5 complaint. If Rogers chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended 6 complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be 7 complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 8 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is 9 irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 10 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not 11 required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for 12 appeal). Rogers’s amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual 13 allegations that Rogers wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Rogers should file the 14 amended complaint on this court’s approved prisoner civil rights form, and it must be entitled

15 “First Amended Complaint.” 16 If Rogers chooses to file an amended complaint, he must file it by April 30, 2026. If 17 Rogers chooses not to file an amended complaint, this action will be dismissed without 18 prejudice. 20 I THEREFORE ORDER that a decision on the application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (ECF No. 1) is deferred. 22 I FURTHER ORDER the Clerk of Court to file Rogers’ complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and 23 send Rogers a courtesy copy of the complaint. ] I FURTHER ORDER that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to 2|| amend. 3 I FURTHER ORDER that defendants High Desert State Prison and North Nevada Correctional Center are dismissed from the case with prejudice, as amendment would be futile. 5 I FURTHER ORDER that defendants Jeremy Bean and John Henley are dismissed from the case without prejudice. 7 I FURTHER ORDERED that, if Rogers chooses to file an amended complaint curing the 8|| deficiencies of his complaint, as outlined in this order, Rogers will file the amended complaint 9) by April 30, 2026. 10 I FURTHER ORDER that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Rogers the approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint and instructions for the same. If Rogers chooses to 12|| file an amended complaint, he should use the approved form, and he will write the words “First Amended” above the words “Civil Rights Complaint” in the caption. 14 I FURTHER ORDER that, if Rogers does not file an amended complaint curing the 15]| stated deficiencies of the complaint by April 30, 2026, this action will be dismissed. 16 Dated: March 30, 2026 TT 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23