(PC) Forgan v. Tuolumne County Jail

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL J. FORGAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1325-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against seven defendants, alleging that they violated his 19 constitutional rights by failing to provide him with a Kosher diet, refusing to keep his 20 appointments for hernia repair, and denying him adequate access to the law library. The 21 complaint is flawed insofar as it contains multiple, unrelated claims against more than one 22 defendant. I will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend and give plaintiff an opportunity to 23 remedy this deficiency. I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 ECF No. 2. 25

26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 5 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. Id. 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff’s complaint raises three insufficiently related claims against six defendants at the 27 Calaveras County Adult Detention Center and the County of Tuolumne. First, he contends that 28 he was not provided with a Kosher diet and that his nutrition suffered as a result. ECF No. 1 at 5. 1 | Second, he alleges that defendants failed to ensure he attended medical appointments for hernia 2 | repair. Jd. at 6. Third, he alleges that his access to the law library was inadequate. Id. at 7. 3 | There is no legal or factual overlap in these claims and success in one has no bearing or relation 4 | onthe other. Multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong in separate suits. 5 | See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 6 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that remedies this deficiency. He is advised that 7 | the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 8 | F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Amended 9 | Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 12 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 13 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 14 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 15 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 16 || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 17 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 18 5. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ May 21, 2025 q——— 22 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28