(PC) Hill v. Cemo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALAN DEAN HILL, Case No. 2:25-cv-0789-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DENNIS CEMO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against sergeant Dennis Cemo. The allegations fail to state a 18 claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies 19 noted herein. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 20 Screening and Pleading Requirements 21 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 22 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 23 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 24 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief. Id. 26 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 28 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 Plaintiff purports to bring a class action on behalf of himself and five other inmates for 18 violations of their constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff, however, cannot bring claims 19 on behalf of other inmates. See Welch v. Terhune, 11 F. App’x 747, 747 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding 20 that the inmate-plaintiff could not prosecute a class action on behalf of other inmates). 21 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 22 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 23 Plaintiff should take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If plaintiff 24 decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 25 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 26 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 27 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 28 serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to 1 | assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 2 | complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 3 | If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 6 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 7 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 8 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 9 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 10 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 11 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ August 18, 2025 q-—— 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28