(PC) Kitilya v. CDCR

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01348
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND JUSTO KITILYA, Case No. 2:25-cv-1348-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this § 1983 action against the 19 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). ECF No. 1. The allegations 20 fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended complaint that addresses the 21 deficiencies noted herein. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 22 No. 4. 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. Id. 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 Plaintiff purports to bring a claim against CDCR for issues related to disciplinary 20 proceedings. ECF No. 1. His factual allegations, however, are insufficient to provide notice of 21 his claims to defendant CDCR. As best I can discern, plaintiff alleges that he received several 22 Rules Violations Reports (“RVR”) that have not been adjudicated in a timely fashion. Id. at 3. 23 Id. As it currently stands, the complaint fails to provide notice to CDCR of the claims against it 24 and fails to meet Rule 8’s pleading requirements. 25 The complaint also fails to name a proper defendant. The only defendant named, CDCR, 26 is not a proper defendant, as it is a state agency shielded from liability under § 1983. See Aranda 27 v. Martel, 416 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 1 Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 2 | plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 3 | Plaintiff should take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If plaintiff 4 | decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 5 | Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 6 | amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 7 | See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 8 || serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to 9 | assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 10 | complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 11 | If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. 14 2. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 15 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 16 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 17 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 18 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 19 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 20 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( q oy — Dated: _ August 4, 2025 ow—— 24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28