1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORRIN TYLER COLBOURN, No. 2:25-cv-00539 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSEPH MCLANE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the undersigned for screening under 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state 20 any cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this action, 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 24 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 26 filing fee in monthly installments that are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one 27 lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial 28 partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order 1 directed to CDCR requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be 2 taken from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid 3 in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 4 STATUTORY SCREENING 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A 7 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 8 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 9 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. 10 at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 11 arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 12 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 13 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 14 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 15 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 16 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 17 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 18 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 19 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 20 considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 21 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 22 favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 24 I. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 25 The events underlying plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Oroville, Butte County. ECF No. 26 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment/D.M.V. Handbook violation against defendant 27 McLane. Plaintiff states that on April 1, 2023, defendant McLane was driving an F350 pickup 28 truck on the wrong side of the read in oncoming traffic and caused an accident. Id. Plaintiff 1 seeks $88 million dollars in damages. Id. at 5. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a 4 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) a defendant acting under color of 5 state law (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. 6 Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff does not allege 7 that defendant McLane is acting under color of state law. The undersigned infers, based on the 8 allegation that plaintiff filed a staff misconduct appeal, see ECF No. 1 at 3, that McLane is likely 9 a prison or jail official. But while courts must liberally construe complaints to give pro se 10 plaintiffs “the benefit of any doubt,” Byrd v. Phoenix Police Department, 885 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 11 Cir. 2018) (citations omitted), they “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not 12 initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 13 Moreover, plaintiff provides no details on the accident or otherwise explain the alleged harm. 14 Accordingly, having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court 15 finds that the complaint does not state a valid claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 against defendant McLane. Because of these defects, the court will not order the complaint to be 17 served on defendants. Plaintiff may try to fix these problems by filing an amended complaint. In 18 deciding whether to file an amended complaint, plaintiff is provided with the relevant legal 19 standards governing his potential claims for relief below. See Attachment A. 20 In addition, if plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how 21 the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. 22 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). The complaint must also allege in specific terms 23 how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 24 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative 25 link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORRIN TYLER COLBOURN, No. 2:25-cv-00539 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSEPH MCLANE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the undersigned for screening under 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state 20 any cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this action, 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 24 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 26 filing fee in monthly installments that are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one 27 lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial 28 partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order 1 directed to CDCR requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be 2 taken from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid 3 in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 4 STATUTORY SCREENING 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A 7 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 8 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 9 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. 10 at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 11 arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 12 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 13 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 14 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 15 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 16 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 17 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 18 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 19 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 20 considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 21 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 22 favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 24 I. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 25 The events underlying plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Oroville, Butte County. ECF No. 26 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment/D.M.V. Handbook violation against defendant 27 McLane. Plaintiff states that on April 1, 2023, defendant McLane was driving an F350 pickup 28 truck on the wrong side of the read in oncoming traffic and caused an accident. Id. Plaintiff 1 seeks $88 million dollars in damages. Id. at 5. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a 4 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) a defendant acting under color of 5 state law (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. 6 Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff does not allege 7 that defendant McLane is acting under color of state law. The undersigned infers, based on the 8 allegation that plaintiff filed a staff misconduct appeal, see ECF No. 1 at 3, that McLane is likely 9 a prison or jail official. But while courts must liberally construe complaints to give pro se 10 plaintiffs “the benefit of any doubt,” Byrd v. Phoenix Police Department, 885 F.3d 639, 642 (9th 11 Cir. 2018) (citations omitted), they “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not 12 initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 13 Moreover, plaintiff provides no details on the accident or otherwise explain the alleged harm. 14 Accordingly, having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court 15 finds that the complaint does not state a valid claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 against defendant McLane. Because of these defects, the court will not order the complaint to be 17 served on defendants. Plaintiff may try to fix these problems by filing an amended complaint. In 18 deciding whether to file an amended complaint, plaintiff is provided with the relevant legal 19 standards governing his potential claims for relief below. See Attachment A. 20 In addition, if plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how 21 the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. 22 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). The complaint must also allege in specific terms 23 how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 24 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative 25 link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. 26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of 27 official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 28 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 1 Plaintiff is also informed that the court will not refer to a prior pleading in order to make 2 his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 3 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 4 amended complaint supersedes any prior complaints. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 5 1967) (citations omitted). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, any previous complaint no 6 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 7 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 8 PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THIS ORDER 9 Your complaint will not be served because the facts alleged are not enough to state a 10 claim. Specifically, you do not explain who defendant McLane is or whether he is a public actor 11 subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. You are being given a chance to fix these problems by filing an 12 amended complaint. If you file an amended complaint, pay attention to the Eighth Amendment 13 standard below. Be sure to provide facts that show exactly what McLane did to violate your 14 rights. Any claims and information not in the amended complaint will not be considered. 15 CONCLUSION 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. 18 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 19 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 21 appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 22 3. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. 24 4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 25 complaint that complies with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 27 number assigned this case, 2:25-cv-00539 SCR P, and must be labeled “First Amended 28 Complaint.” 1 5. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 2 || recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 || Procedure. 4 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 5 || form used in this district. 6 | DATED: December 22, 2025
8 SEAN C. RIORDAN 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 ATTACHMENT A 2 I. Eighth Amendment Substantial Risk of Serious Harm 3 The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” imposes 4 duties on prison officials to provide “humane conditions of confinement.” Farmer v. Brennan, 5 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials must ensure that 6 inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must ‘take reasonable 7 measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Id. at 832 (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 8 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). The Amendment’s protections extend to “condition[s] of confinement 9 that [are] sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering” in the future. Helling 10 v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993). 11 In such circumstances, it is a “prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial 12 risk of serious harm to an inmate” that violates the Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828. 13 This type of Eighth Amendment claim has an objective component and a subjective component. 14 First, an inmate must allege that the risk was, objectively, “sufficiently serious.” Lemire v. Cal. 15 Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). 16 Second, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant official acted, subjectively, with “deliberate 17 indifference” to his health or safety. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) 18 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The deliberate indifference standard requires a showing that the 19 prison official acted or failed to act despite the prison official’s knowledge of a substantial risk of 20 serious harm to the prisoner. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28