(PC) Jones v. C.D.C.R.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE JONES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01298-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 CDCR, et al., (ECF No. 29)

15 Defendants. ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND 16 RECOMMENDATIONS AS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 17 (ECF No. 32)

18 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 32) 20 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 21 22 Plaintiff Eugene Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 On May 16, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed May 6, 25 2024, and issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 26 failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 29.) Those 27 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 28 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) Following the Court’s order 1 striking Plaintiff’s unsigned June 4, 2025 filing and granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 2 resubmit his objections, Plaintiff timely filed signed objections to the findings and 3 recommendations on June 20, 2025. (ECF Nos. 30–32.) 4 In his objections, Plaintiff objects only to the findings and recommendations with respect 5 to his excessive use of force claim and the failure to protect claim. (ECF No. 32, p. 1.) Plaintiff 6 argues that after he was attacked by several inmates, Defendant John Doe #1 handcuffed Plaintiff. 7 Once the handcuffs were on, John Doe #1 forcefully grabbed Plaintiff by his right arm, then 8 forcefully broke Plaintiff’s finger. This was done intentionally to hurt Plaintiff. Officers at 9 CDCR are trained on handcuffing prisoners safely and without causing a serious injury such as 10 this one. John Doe #1 did not apologize to Plaintiff for breaking Plaintiff’s finger. The act was 11 done because of the many staff complaints filed at the prison by Plaintiff. As John Doe #1 12 escorted Plaintiff to medical he even stated, “That’s your writing hand huh. File those complaints 13 now.” (Id. at 2.) 14 As to his failure to protect claim, Plaintiff alleges that before the attack took place on May 15 24, 2024, Plaintiff did in fact verbally inform Defendant John Doe #2 that he didn’t feel safe in 16 that dorm or that facility. John Doe #2 spoke to Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff’s written and verbal 17 complaints, and completely ignored the risk. Plaintiff was left on that facility. John Doe #2 18 could have prevented the attack upon Plaintiff but instead did nothing. Days later several inmates 19 attacked Plaintiff, beating him badly. After the attack, John Doe #2 had/instructed officers to 20 keep Plaintiff on the same facility, fully aware that Plaintiff had gotten beaten by several inmates. 21 The incidents are all captured on video footage. John Doe #2 cannot deny that he was not aware. 22 (Id.) 23 Based on the above allegations, many of which were not included in Plaintiff’s first 24 amended complaint, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the findings and 25 recommendations as to his excessive force and failure to protect claims. 26 While Plaintiff’s complaint must be construed liberally, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 27 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 28 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 1 (2007)). Though detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 2 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 3 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). As discussed in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff’s 4 first amended complaint provided only conclusory statements regarding his excessive force and 5 failure to protect claims. Further, Plaintiff was provided the applicable pleading standards, (see 6 ECF No. 26), and was unable to cure the identified deficiencies when he filed the first amended 7 complaint. Accordingly, the Court does not find it appropriate to allow Plaintiff’s claims to 8 proceed as currently pled in the first amended complaint. 9 However, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in an abundance of caution, the Court 10 finds it appropriate to vacate the pending findings and recommendations and to grant Plaintiff a 11 final opportunity to amend his complaint. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended 12 complaint, limited to Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force against Defendant John Doe #1 and 13 Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect against Defendant John Doe #2. The Court will screen 14 the second amended complaint in due course to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for 15 relief. 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 17 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 18 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise 19 a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 20 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 21 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 22 “buckshot” complaints). 23 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 24 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 25 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 26 Local Rule 220. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2025, (ECF No. 29), are 3 VACATED; 4 2. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 32), are 5 CONSTRUED as a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 32), is 7 GRANTED; 8 4. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 9 5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second 10 amended complaint, limited to Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force against Defendant 11 John Doe #1 and Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect against Defendant John Doe 12 #2; and 13 6. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 14 this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order, failure 15 to prosecute, and failure to state a claim. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: June 26, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28