ELIJAH LEE JACKSON, No. 2:24-cv-1513 CSK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On July 31, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is before the Court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 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 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 when 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 See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at the Sacramento County Main Jail. It remains unclear whether plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or serving a sentence. Plaintiff sues Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Garcia, Badge #211. On April 12, 2024, plaintiff filed a grievance against defendant Garcia for starting an argument over plaintiff’s intercom. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) The next day, plaintiff alleges that defendant Garcia “wrote plaintiff up” for allegedly running a store. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s actions in writing up plaintiff constitute retaliation. (Id.) Plaintiff has clarified his allegations as to defendant Garcia, and such allegations state a potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim.1 However, plaintiff filed his amended complaint on a “Commendation/Complaint Form” provided by the Office of the Inspector General. (ECF No. 10.) This form does not provide key information required to constitute a federal civil rights complaint and does not bear plaintiff’s signature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); 11(a) (parties proceeding without counsel are required to sign all pleadings, motions, and other papers submitted to the court for filing). In addition, plaintiff did not identify what relief he seeks. Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be dismissed. The Court dismisses the first amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint, but plaintiff is required to file his second amended complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form. If plaintiff wishes, he may append a copy of page two from his first amended complaint as the supporting facts for his retaliation claim against defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend solely as to his retaliation claim against defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is not granted leave to add additional defendants or new claims to his second amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 1 A viable retaliation claim in the prison context has five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). To state a cognizable retaliation claim, plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged retaliatory act and the protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014). 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, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ELIJAH LEE JACKSON, No. 2:24-cv-1513 CSK P Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On July 31, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is before the Court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 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 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 when 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), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at the Sacramento County Main Jail. It remains unclear whether plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or serving a sentence. Plaintiff sues Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Garcia, Badge #211. On April 12, 2024, plaintiff filed a grievance against defendant Garcia for starting an argument over plaintiff’s intercom. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) The next day, plaintiff alleges that defendant Garcia “wrote plaintiff up” for allegedly running a store. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s actions in writing up plaintiff constitute retaliation. (Id.) Plaintiff has clarified his allegations as to defendant Garcia, and such allegations state a potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim.1 However, plaintiff filed his amended complaint on a “Commendation/Complaint Form” provided by the Office of the Inspector General. (ECF No. 10.) This form does not provide key information required to constitute a federal civil rights complaint and does not bear plaintiff’s signature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); 11(a) (parties proceeding without counsel are required to sign all pleadings, motions, and other papers submitted to the court for filing). In addition, plaintiff did not identify what relief he seeks. Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be dismissed. The Court dismisses the first amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint, but plaintiff is required to file his second amended complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form. If plaintiff wishes, he may append a copy of page two from his first amended complaint as the supporting facts for his retaliation claim against defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend solely as to his retaliation claim against defendant Garcia. Plaintiff is not granted leave to add additional defendants or new claims to his second amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 1 A viable retaliation claim in the prison context has five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). To state a cognizable retaliation claim, plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged retaliatory act and the protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014). 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, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. 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 amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in the second amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 10) is dismissed. 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and b. An original of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be filed on this Court’s civil rights complaint form and shall comply 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 also bear the docket number assigned to this case, must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint,” and must bear plaintiff’s signature. Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. /// /// 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner, as well as a copy of plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 10). Dated: September 10, 2024 7 Ch Spo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /Ufjack1513.Ita2 1]
ELIJAH LEE JACKSON, No. 2:24-cv-1513 CSK P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT GARCIA, Defendant. Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order filed on ______________ (date). Second Amended Complaint (Check this box if submitting a Second Amended Complaint) DATED: ________________________________ Plaintiff