ANTONIO LAMONT CAIN, No. 2:20-cv-1768-JDP P Plaintiff, v. ORDER B. PAUIGLIATI, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a federal prisonerproceeding without counsel in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and tworequests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 3 & 5). Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiffto collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). Screening Standards Federal courts are required to screen cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss anycomplaint, or portion thereof,that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.§ 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twomblyand Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Screening Order Plaintiff’s complaint is plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring multiple, unrelated claims against multiple defendants. That is, plaintiff purports to bring all of the following claims in this action: (1)a November 9, 2019 religious discrimination claim against defendants Ballard and Hatton; (2)a December 4, 2019 excessive force claim against defendants Pauigliati and Gonzales; (3) a January 11, 2020 verbal sexual assault claim against defendant Cervantes; (4) a January 28, 2020 excessive force claim against defendant Pauigliati; (5) a January 29, 2020 and February 11, 2020 due process claim against defendants Futrell and Figueroa-Price; (6)a February 11, 2020 retaliation claim against defendant Alatary; (7) a February 12, 2020 mail interreference claim against defendants Waembrodt and Baker; and (8) a November 15, 2020 mail interference claim against defendants Nimmos and Potichkin. Aclaimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims encompass discrete events involving separate defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. Indeed, most subsets of allegations pose entirely separate questions—both legally and factually—from the others. Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Leave to Amend Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (explaining that a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims,see George, 507 F.3d at 607, and hemay not bring unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Id. Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete inand of itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The] ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible whilemeetingthe above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should not include procedural or factual background that has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his amended complaint is as legible as possible, considering not onlypenman
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ANTONIO LAMONT CAIN, No. 2:20-cv-1768-JDP P Plaintiff, v. ORDER B. PAUIGLIATI, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a federal prisonerproceeding without counsel in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and tworequests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 3 & 5). Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiffto collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). Screening Standards Federal courts are required to screen cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss anycomplaint, or portion thereof,that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.§ 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twomblyand Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Screening Order Plaintiff’s complaint is plainly deficient insofar as it attempts to bring multiple, unrelated claims against multiple defendants. That is, plaintiff purports to bring all of the following claims in this action: (1)a November 9, 2019 religious discrimination claim against defendants Ballard and Hatton; (2)a December 4, 2019 excessive force claim against defendants Pauigliati and Gonzales; (3) a January 11, 2020 verbal sexual assault claim against defendant Cervantes; (4) a January 28, 2020 excessive force claim against defendant Pauigliati; (5) a January 29, 2020 and February 11, 2020 due process claim against defendants Futrell and Figueroa-Price; (6)a February 11, 2020 retaliation claim against defendant Alatary; (7) a February 12, 2020 mail interreference claim against defendants Waembrodt and Baker; and (8) a November 15, 2020 mail interference claim against defendants Nimmos and Potichkin. Aclaimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against separate defendants: “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims encompass discrete events involving separate defendants that are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. Indeed, most subsets of allegations pose entirely separate questions—both legally and factually—from the others. Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Leave to Amend Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (explaining that a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims,see George, 507 F.3d at 607, and hemay not bring unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Id. Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete inand of itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The] ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible whilemeetingthe above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should not include procedural or factual background that has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his amended complaint is as legible as possible, considering not onlypenmanship but also spacing and organization. Plaintiff should consider whether each of the defendants he names actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. Request for Counsel Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may askan attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability ofthe plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s applicationto proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed concurrently herewith. 3. Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 3& 5)aredenied. wAOe 2 OU EEMOTV RAT MMU BPC NI er PY VI
4. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of this order. 5. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. DATED: October 6, 2020 Qo ; STATE GISTRATE JUDGE