(PC) Buckner v. Sacramento County Jail

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 12, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-01922
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Buckner v. Sacramento County Jail ((PC) Buckner v. Sacramento County Jail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Buckner v. Sacramento County Jail, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LADARRIAN BUCKNER, No. 2:21-cv-1922 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 19 and Local Rule 302. On December 20, 2021, it was recommended that his action be dismissed 20 based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the November 2, 2021 order. On March 17, 2022, 21 plaintiff, who had been transferred to state custody, filed an amended complaint and a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the findings and recommendations are vacated. 23 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 25 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 27 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 28 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 1 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 2 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 3 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 4 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(b)(2). 6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court. As set forth below, plaintiff’s 7 pleading is dismissed with leave to amend. 8 Screening Standards 9 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 10 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 11 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 12 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 14 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 15 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 16 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 18 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 19 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 20 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 21 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 22 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 23 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 24 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 25 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 26 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 27 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 28 //// 1 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 2 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 3 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 4 In his original complaint, plaintiff brought claims against defendants at the Sacramento 5 County Jail, but now names the State of California in the caption of his amended complaint. 6 However, plaintiff names no individuals as defendants in the defendants’ section of his pleading. 7 As a statement of his claim, plaintiff writes: “I feel I’m having my rights as a human being 8 violated by authority. . . Excessive force used by authority using electronic devices of some 9 sort.” (ECF No. 8 at 4.) As relief, plaintiff seeks an order providing a fixed income or a letter 10 recommending plaintiff receive social security disability or authorization for settlement for pain 11 and suffering. (Id.) Plaintiff demands one million dollars, but states he is willing to settle for 12 $500,000. (ECF No. 8 at 6.) 13 Discussion 14 Plaintiff names the State of California as a defendant in the caption of his pleading. The 15 Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a 16 state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 17 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 18 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not 19 consented to suit. Accordingly, any putative claims against the State of California are frivolous 20 and must be dismissed. 21 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint so vague and conclusory 22 that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for 23 relief.1 The court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain 24 statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 25 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 26 succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 27 1 Plaintiff is advised that if he seeks social security disability benefits, he must apply directly to 28 Social Security for such benefits. This court does not issue recommendation letters for litigants. 1 name the individual plaintiff contends violated his constitutional rights.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Jenkins v. McKeithen
395 U.S. 411 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital
425 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Alabama v. Pugh
438 U.S. 781 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Quern v. Jordan
440 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Whitley v. Albers
475 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp
745 F.2d 1221 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Sergio Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino
806 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Johnson v. Duffy
588 F.2d 740 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Ellis v. Cassidy
625 F.2d 227 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
May v. Enomoto
633 F.2d 164 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Jackson v. Hayakawa
682 F.2d 1344 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Buckner v. Sacramento County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-buckner-v-sacramento-county-jail-caed-2022.