JOHNNIE HEARD, No. 2:20-cv-01589-KJM-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court. I. Screening Standard The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). II. Allegations in the Amended Complaint Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee in custody at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove, California. ECF No. 8 at 1. In his three-page amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that although he tested negative for COVID-19, Sacramento County does not have a policy that requires inmates to wear masks or to socially distance themselves from other inmates. ECF No. 8 at 3. While plaintiff indicates that the jail has an inmate grievance procedure, he states that he has not filed any grievance concerning the institution’s COVID-19 policies. Id. at 2. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages and his immediate release from custody. Id. at 3. III. Legal Standards Plaintiff is advised that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Although exhaustion is not required “when circumstances render administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable,’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit requires “a good-faith effort on the part of inmates to exhaust a prison's administrative remedies as a prerequisite to finding remedies effectively unavailable,” Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012). As in the original screening order, plaintiff is once again advised that release from custody is not an available remedy in a civil rights action. See ECF No. 6 at 5. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, a federal habeas corpus action is only available if plaintiff has been convicted and has exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). IV. Analysis The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint fail to demonstrate that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). However, because there are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Additionally, based on his continued request to be released from custody, it is not entirely clear to the court what type of action plaintiff is attempting to pursue. If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rul
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JOHNNIE HEARD, No. 2:20-cv-01589-KJM-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the court. I. Screening Standard The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). II. Allegations in the Amended Complaint Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee in custody at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove, California. ECF No. 8 at 1. In his three-page amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that although he tested negative for COVID-19, Sacramento County does not have a policy that requires inmates to wear masks or to socially distance themselves from other inmates. ECF No. 8 at 3. While plaintiff indicates that the jail has an inmate grievance procedure, he states that he has not filed any grievance concerning the institution’s COVID-19 policies. Id. at 2. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages and his immediate release from custody. Id. at 3. III. Legal Standards Plaintiff is advised that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Although exhaustion is not required “when circumstances render administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable,’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit requires “a good-faith effort on the part of inmates to exhaust a prison's administrative remedies as a prerequisite to finding remedies effectively unavailable,” Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012). As in the original screening order, plaintiff is once again advised that release from custody is not an available remedy in a civil rights action. See ECF No. 6 at 5. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, a federal habeas corpus action is only available if plaintiff has been convicted and has exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). IV. Analysis The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint fail to demonstrate that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). However, because there are exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Additionally, based on his continued request to be released from custody, it is not entirely clear to the court what type of action plaintiff is attempting to pursue. If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. The court has reviewed the allegations in your amended complaint and concluded that you have not properly exhausted the jail’s administrative remedies prior to filing this civil action. You are being given the opportunity to try to fix this problem by filing a second amended complaint that describes why the inmate grievance procedure was “effectively unavailable” to you prior to filing this lawsuit. If you choose to file a second amended complaint, the court will screen it as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. You are not required to file a second amended complaint. If you choose not to file an amended complaint, or if you choose to file a federal habeas petition instead, this court will recommend that this civil action be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed; and 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff ///// ///// ///// must file an original and two copies of the second amended complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: January 21, 2021 fof i, / CAN fu fl. ay > CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□