Matthew B. Cramer v. Macomber, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01729
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW B. CRAMER, Case No. 2:25-cv-1729-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought this action in state court, and defendants have removed 19 it to this district.1 ECF No. 1. Such removed complaints are still subject to screening. See 20 Walker v. Departmental Review Bd., No. 2:17-cv-02191-AC-P, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176242, 21 2017 WL 11517550 *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) (“The screening obligation applies where a 22 complaint is removed from state court.”). In my previous screening order, I found the complaint 23 deficient because it failed to meet federal pleading standards. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has filed an 24 amended complaint, ECF No. 13, that suffers from the same deficiencies. Accordingly, I 25 recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26

27 1 Plaintiff has filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF Nos. 18 & 19. Those motions are denied as moot since the Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. 28 See ECF Nos. 20 & 22. 1 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 II. Analysis 25 As in his previous complaint, plaintiff broadly alleges that correctional officers at North 26 Kern State Prison have violated inmates’ rights by empowering former gang members to extort 27 and terrorize other prisoners. ECF No. 13 at 6-9. Plaintiff does not tie these complaints about the 28 general conditions at the prison to any specific violations of his own rights. And, although he 1 vaguely alleges that all the named defendants have endorsed or ignored the dire circumstances at 2 the prison, he fails to tie any of their actions or inactions to any specific injury that he has 3 suffered. He does, on one page of the complaint, reference “retaliation for whistle blowing,” but 4 he does not connect this alleged retaliation to any named defendant. Id. at 14. Thus, he fails to 5 give each defendant notice of the specific claims against them. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 7 Plaintiff does allege that other named inmates have been threatened, injured, or made too 8 scared to seek medical attention. ECF No. 13 at 13. In one of the few specific allegations of 9 wrongdoing against the named defendants, plaintiff alleges that defendants Curry and Avila 10 enabled an assault on an inmate named John D’Angelo. Id. at 17-18. All of these claims are non- 11 cognizable, however, because plaintiff does not have standing to bring claims on behalf of other 12 inmates. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“[A] litigant appearing in 13 propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). 14 I have already afforded plaintiff an opportunity to amend so that he may remedy these 15 deficiencies, and he has failed to do so. Accordingly, I now recommend that this action be 16 dismissed without leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (noting that 17 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment may weigh in favor of dismissal without leave 18 to amend). If plaintiff has other, more specific allegations to make, he may note as much in his 19 objections to these findings and recommendations. 20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma 21 pauperis, ECF Nos. 18 & 19, are DENIED 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint, ECF No. 13, be 23 DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 18, 2025 Q_———— 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28