(PC) Bland v. State of California

Opinion

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 2:19-CV-2100-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 35. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. Plaintiff names Xavier Becerra, former Attorney General, as the sole defendant. ECF No. 35, pg. 2. In Plaintiff’s fourth attempt to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Becerra “entered into a contract intentionally, knowingly and voluntarily with Claimant, then breached said contract by not responding/rebutting it, in the prescribed time allotted in said agreement, thus consenting and agreeing to all stated therein.” Id. Plaintiff’s complaint is littered with irrelevant rule statements and definitions. See generally id. Plaintiff concludes saying, “Wherefore, based upon the above-stated facts, Claimant enters into the court’s record by way of common-law writ in the capacity of Claimant’s own judicial authority as Claimant is a sovereign and issues this writ directly to the clerk of the court.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff orders, among other things, $1,000,000 per day since August 9, 1998, and that 25 inmates be released. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable cause of action under § 1983. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim but fails to allege how his constitutional rights were violated. Nor does Plaintiff provide the Court with any facts. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged constitutional or statutory deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff fails to allege any action by Defendant Becerra connected to a constitutional deprivation. Il. CONCLUSION Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's third amended complaint, ECF No. 35, be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 20, 2022 Co UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE