1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO C. GARCIA, No. 2:24-cv-01817-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEECH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 //// 27 //// 28 1 Screening Standards 2 Notwithstanding payment of the filing fee, the court must screen plaintiff’s complaint in 3 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 4 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 6 is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 7 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 10 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 11 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 12 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 13 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 14 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 15 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 16 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 17 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 18 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 19 678. 20 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 22 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 23 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 24 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 25 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 26 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Discussion 2 It is impossible to understand plaintiff’s claims from the complaint as pleaded. The 3 complaint itself, ECF No. 8, implies that plaintiff is entitled to be paroled, but some failure by the 4 state trial court has delayed the process. Id. at 2-3 (alleging that the superior court has not issued 5 a “remittitur or court-ordered abstract of judgment”). Plaintiff also alleges that he has been made 6 to work with counselors in prison who he had maimed by shooting. Id. at 3. The relationship 7 between these allegations is not apparent. In addition, plaintiff has filed other documents that 8 attempt to assert claims against other defendants. For example, in ECF No. 1, plaintiff sues a 9 number of businesses in the Stockton area as well as the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., 10 “the face duplicate fired from services realtor-broker-accountant-lawyer Eddie Mulgrew,” and 11 “estranged wife Eva Longoria.” In ECF No. 13, plaintiff alleges claims based on, among other 12 incidents, “the denial of five open book accounts status estate report of administration [sic]” and 13 “the denial of payment from sales estate in Hollywood Hills for 8.25 million as well as the sale of 14 KISS to Tophouse Records.” 15 A sufficiently plead complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 must “put 16 defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 17 (9th Cir. 1991). Vague allegations that do not allege conduct of a specific, identifiable defendant 18 cannot survive screening. Further, a claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in 19 law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Claims based on fanciful, delusional, or fantastic 20 scenarios are considered frivolous as lacking an arguable basis in fact. Id. at 327-28; McKeever v. 21 Block, 932 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s claims are fanciful as well as too poorly 22 pleaded to put defendants on notice as required by Rule 8. 23 Additionally, it is well-settled that a plaintiff may not proceed with various unrelated 24 claims against separate defendants: 25 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 26 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 27 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 28 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 1 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 2 Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies 3 identified herein. 4 Leave to Amend 5 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 6 amended complaint it should observe the following: 7 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 8 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 9 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 10 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 11 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 12 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 13 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 14 in the amended complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO C. GARCIA, No. 2:24-cv-01817-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEECH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 //// 27 //// 28 1 Screening Standards 2 Notwithstanding payment of the filing fee, the court must screen plaintiff’s complaint in 3 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 4 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 6 is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 7 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 10 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 11 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 12 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 13 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 14 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 15 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 16 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 17 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 18 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 19 678. 20 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 22 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 23 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 24 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 25 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 26 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Discussion 2 It is impossible to understand plaintiff’s claims from the complaint as pleaded. The 3 complaint itself, ECF No. 8, implies that plaintiff is entitled to be paroled, but some failure by the 4 state trial court has delayed the process. Id. at 2-3 (alleging that the superior court has not issued 5 a “remittitur or court-ordered abstract of judgment”). Plaintiff also alleges that he has been made 6 to work with counselors in prison who he had maimed by shooting. Id. at 3. The relationship 7 between these allegations is not apparent. In addition, plaintiff has filed other documents that 8 attempt to assert claims against other defendants. For example, in ECF No. 1, plaintiff sues a 9 number of businesses in the Stockton area as well as the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., 10 “the face duplicate fired from services realtor-broker-accountant-lawyer Eddie Mulgrew,” and 11 “estranged wife Eva Longoria.” In ECF No. 13, plaintiff alleges claims based on, among other 12 incidents, “the denial of five open book accounts status estate report of administration [sic]” and 13 “the denial of payment from sales estate in Hollywood Hills for 8.25 million as well as the sale of 14 KISS to Tophouse Records.” 15 A sufficiently plead complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 must “put 16 defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 17 (9th Cir. 1991). Vague allegations that do not allege conduct of a specific, identifiable defendant 18 cannot survive screening. Further, a claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in 19 law or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Claims based on fanciful, delusional, or fantastic 20 scenarios are considered frivolous as lacking an arguable basis in fact. Id. at 327-28; McKeever v. 21 Block, 932 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s claims are fanciful as well as too poorly 22 pleaded to put defendants on notice as required by Rule 8. 23 Additionally, it is well-settled that a plaintiff may not proceed with various unrelated 24 claims against separate defendants: 25 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross- 26 claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 27 party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 28 joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 1 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 2 Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies 3 identified herein. 4 Leave to Amend 5 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 6 amended complaint it should observe the following: 7 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 8 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 9 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 10 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 11 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 12 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 13 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 14 in the amended complaint. 15 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 17 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 18 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 19 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 20 without reference to any earlier filed complaint or other pleading. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is 21 because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended 22 complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See 23 Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes 24 the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 25 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). 26 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 27 fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 28 procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. 1 Conclusion 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; 4 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 5 accordance with the notice to the custodial agency filed concurrently herewith; 6 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 8) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 7 from the date of service of this order; and 8 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 9 stated herein. 10 11 || Dated: May 12, 2025 Zot! PLHECA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28