(PC) Edwards v. County of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01854
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. EDWARDS, No. 2:22-cv-1854 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint for screening. For the reasons 19 set forth below, the court finds plaintiff again states no claims for relief potentially cognizable 20 under §1983. Because permitting plaintiff to file another amended complaint would be futile, the 21 undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed four prior complaints. The court screened each complaint and dismissed 24 each with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 19, 2022. (ECF No. 25 1.) While portions of the complaint were not legible, on screening, the court was able to discern 26 that plaintiff, who was then a pretrial detainee, was complaining about dental work and, it 27 appeared, about contracting Valley Fever. The court determined that plaintiff was attempting to 28 state claims that jail personnel had violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to medical 1 care. The court instructed plaintiff on the legal standards for stating a Fourteenth Amendment 2 claim, on the necessity of connecting each defendant to an alleged violation of his rights, and on 3 amending the complaint. (ECF No. 8.) 4 On April 5, 2023, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On screening, 5 the court found that the complaint contained no factual allegations. Rather, plaintiff had filed 6 over 200 pages of exhibits. The court advised plaintiff, as it had advised plaintiff in the initial 7 screening order, that the court is not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s 8 allegations are as to each named defendant. Plaintiff was again instructed on the legal standards 9 for stating a claim that he was deprived of constitutionally adequate medical care and again 10 provided detailed standards for preparing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) 11 Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) The second amended 12 complaint was significantly more legible and detailed than the original complaint. However, on 13 screening, the court again found plaintiff stated no cognizable claims for relief. The court found 14 plaintiff had not made any factual allegations against fifteen of the nineteen defendants named. 15 (ECF No. 17 at 6.) With respect to the remaining defendants, the court explained that plaintiff 16 failed to state a cognizable claim against the county health department because he did not allege 17 that the individual defendants acted pursuant to a county policy. (Id. at 7-8.) Further, plaintiff 18 failed to allege any claims against the three remaining physician defendants. Plaintiff failed to 19 state facts that could plausibly be construed to support a claim that those defendants intentionally 20 put plaintiff at substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 21 9-10.) For the third time, the court provided plaintiff with the legal standards for stating a 22 Fourteenth Amendment claim and instructions for filing an amended complaint. (Id. at 8, 10-12.) 23 The court was unable to screen plaintiff’s third amended complaint because plaintiff failed 24 to identify the defendants he contended violated his rights. (See ECF Nos. 22, 24.) The court 25 instructed plaintiff to carefully review the prior screening orders when preparing a fourth 26 amended complaint. (ECF No. 24 at 2.) 27 On September 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.) 28 //// 1 SCREENING 2 As described in the court’s prior screening orders, the court is required to screen 3 complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 4 U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 5 for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 6 Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 7 defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 8 (1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 9 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 10 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 11 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 12 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 13 marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 14 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 15 The first page of plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint identifies the filing as a fourth 16 amended complaint. However, what follows is in almost all respects an identical copy of the 17 second amended complaint. (Compare ECF No. 29 at 6-22 with ECF No. 16 at 1-17.) The only 18 difference this court can discern is that plaintiff crossed out the August 2023 date for the 19 declaration attached to the complaint and added “September 5, 2024.” (ECF No. 29 at 22.) That 20 change indicates that plaintiff did not mistakenly refile the second amended complaint and is 21 aware that he was re-filing the same documents. 22 This is the fifth time the court has screened a complaint in this case. Despite explanations 23 about the deficiencies in each prior complaint and despite repeated instructions on curing those 24 deficiencies, plaintiff not only failed to do so, but he simply refiled a complaint previously found 25 inadequate. This court finds it would be futile and a waste of limited judicial resources to permit 26 plaintiff a sixth opportunity to attempt to state a claim under §1983. Dismissal without further 27 leave to amend is appropriate. See McKinney v. Baca, 250 F. App’x 781 (9th Cir. 2007) 28 (dismissal without leave to amend second amended complaint appropriate after district court 1 | “notif[ed] [the pro se plaintiff] of the deficiencies in his pleadings, advis[ed] him how to correct 2 || them, and afford[ed] him multiple opportunities to amend his complaint” (citing Ferdik v. 3 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 4 | 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would be futile, there was no need to prolong the 5 || litigation by permitting further amendment.”). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to randomly 7 || assign a district judge to this case. 8 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the fourth amended complaint be dismissed 9 || without leave to amend for plaintiff's failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 13 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 14 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 15 || time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. □□□□□ 951 16 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 | DATED: October 15, 2024 18 19 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28