1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, No. 2:22-cv-1282-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 20 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 21 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 22 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 23 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 24 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 According to the complaint (ECF No. 1), filed July 20, 2022, plaintiff has been housed in 26 administrative segregation since February 2, 2022. Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims that “for days at a 27 time,” he is locked in a cell without a shower, phone call, or any human interaction.” Id. He 28 claims to receive five and a half hours of time outside his cell each week, but no time outdoors. 1 Id. As a result of these conditions, plaintiff has felt suicidal. Id. Plaintiff also states that 2 “defendants are retaliating due to plaintiff’s current charged offenses.”1 Id. at 4. He states 3 further, that “badly need[ed] medical attention and surgeries are being postponed or denied” and 4 that he has been “assaulted by deputies on multiple occasions.” Id. at 5, 6. For the reasons stated 5 below, plaintiff’s allegations cannot survive screening. 6 First, the allegations regarding inadequate medical care and being assaulted by deputies 7 are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. If plaintiff wishes to pursue a 8 claim that he was denied adequate medical care, he must plead facts showing that a defendant 9 acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Castro v. County of Los 10 Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that such claims, if brought by 11 an inmate not yet convicted, arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause). If 12 plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim that a defendant applied excessive force, he must plead facts 13 showing that “the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” 14 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397, 400 (2015) (also noting that such claims, when 15 brought by a pretrial detainee, arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 16 Second, plaintiff’s allegation that defendants retaliated against him because of his “current 17 charged offenses,” fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim under the First Amendment. A 18 First Amendment retaliation claim requires a showing that a defendant took adverse action 19 against a plaintiff because the plaintiff engaged in conduct that is protected by the First 20 Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-568 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not 21 alleged he was retaliated against because of his engagement in any conduct protected by the First 22 Amendment. 23 Lastly, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim based on the alleged conditions of 24 confinement in administrative segregation. Although inmates must be provided opportunities for 25 exercise, restrictions for security reasons do not violate the Constitution. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 26 F.3d 1444, 1457-1458 (9th Cir. 1993). If plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim based on the 27
28 1 The court infers from this allegation that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 1 restrictions in administrative segregation, he must plead facts showing that the restrictions were 2 punitive and not permissible “regulatory restraints” justified by security considerations. Bell v. 3 Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979); Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 Leave to Amend 6 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 7 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 8 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
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 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, No. 2:22-cv-1282-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), he filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 20 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 21 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 22 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 23 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 24 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 24 Screening Order 25 According to the complaint (ECF No. 1), filed July 20, 2022, plaintiff has been housed in 26 administrative segregation since February 2, 2022. Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims that “for days at a 27 time,” he is locked in a cell without a shower, phone call, or any human interaction.” Id. He 28 claims to receive five and a half hours of time outside his cell each week, but no time outdoors. 1 Id. As a result of these conditions, plaintiff has felt suicidal. Id. Plaintiff also states that 2 “defendants are retaliating due to plaintiff’s current charged offenses.”1 Id. at 4. He states 3 further, that “badly need[ed] medical attention and surgeries are being postponed or denied” and 4 that he has been “assaulted by deputies on multiple occasions.” Id. at 5, 6. For the reasons stated 5 below, plaintiff’s allegations cannot survive screening. 6 First, the allegations regarding inadequate medical care and being assaulted by deputies 7 are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. If plaintiff wishes to pursue a 8 claim that he was denied adequate medical care, he must plead facts showing that a defendant 9 acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Castro v. County of Los 10 Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that such claims, if brought by 11 an inmate not yet convicted, arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause). If 12 plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim that a defendant applied excessive force, he must plead facts 13 showing that “the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” 14 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397, 400 (2015) (also noting that such claims, when 15 brought by a pretrial detainee, arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 16 Second, plaintiff’s allegation that defendants retaliated against him because of his “current 17 charged offenses,” fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim under the First Amendment. A 18 First Amendment retaliation claim requires a showing that a defendant took adverse action 19 against a plaintiff because the plaintiff engaged in conduct that is protected by the First 20 Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-568 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not 21 alleged he was retaliated against because of his engagement in any conduct protected by the First 22 Amendment. 23 Lastly, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim based on the alleged conditions of 24 confinement in administrative segregation. Although inmates must be provided opportunities for 25 exercise, restrictions for security reasons do not violate the Constitution. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 26 F.3d 1444, 1457-1458 (9th Cir. 1993). If plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim based on the 27
28 1 The court infers from this allegation that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 1 restrictions in administrative segregation, he must plead facts showing that the restrictions were 2 punitive and not permissible “regulatory restraints” justified by security considerations. Bell v. 3 Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979); Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 Leave to Amend 6 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 7 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 8 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 9 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 10 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 11 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 12 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 13 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 15 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 16 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against 17 multiple defendants. Id. 18 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 19 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 20 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 21 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 22 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 23 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 24 1967)). 25 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 26 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 27 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 28 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 1 | and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 2 || actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 3 || which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 4 Conclusion 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 7 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 8 accordance with the notice to the Sacramento County Sheriff filed concurrently 9 herewith; 10 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of 1] service of this order; and 12 4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. 13 || Dated: October 7, 2022.
15 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28