DENNIS PETILLO, JR., No. 2:23-cv-2286-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. Plaintiff Dennis Petillo, Jr., a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the SAC fails to state a claim and should be dismissed without further leave to amend. I. Screening Requirement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000). 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 dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To state a cognizable 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.” Id. The facts alleged must “‘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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). II. Plaintiff’s SAC Plaintiff filed this lawsuit while he was an inmate at California State Prison-Sacramento. The SAC is difficult to read throughout and illegible in several places. Based on a review of the SAC, the court is unable to discern the names of the defendants whom plaintiff intends to sue or the relief that plaintiff seeks through this suit. Plaintiff mentions Associate Warden Anderson and appears to state “detail the warden intention to [torture] destroy [illegible] to defeat to ruin existence as of annih[i]late to cause death deceptive slaughter actual extreme pain.…” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff also mentions a few correctional captains by name, but the court cannot discern what specific actions or omissions plaintiff is alleging they took that violated his rights. (See id. at 2.) In short, the SAC’s factual allegations are incomprehensible to the court. III. Discussion By order dated December 15, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s initial complaint filed in this case and informed plaintiff that the allegations were so vague and conclusory that the court was unable to determine whether the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was provided legal standards and an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Id.) Upon reviewing plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the court attempted to screen plaintiff’s first amended complaint but could not do so “as much of the amended complaint is illegible due to plaintiff’s small and cramped handwriting. Further, the material is vague and confusing such that the court is unable to decipher plaintiff’s claims.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) Plaintiff was provided another opportunity to amend and was cautioned “[i]f the second amended complaint is illegible and/or vague and confusing, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.” (Id. at 1-2.) The court instructed plaintiff to focus on providing the “who, when, what, and how” facts underlying his claims. (Id. at 2.) Attempting again to conduct the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any defendant or defendants. The allegations in the SAC are incomprehensible and do not provide adequate notice regarding the actions of any defendant that constituted a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The court cannot discern any facts supporting a valid cause of action against any defendant. Accordingly, the SAC does not state a valid claim for relief and must be dismissed. Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). If, however, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). In this instance, further amendment would be futile because the deficiencies have not been cured and the factual allegations have not improved in clarity despite plaintiff being given two prior chances to amend. The SAC should be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This summary is not intended as legal advice. The court cannot understand the claims you are attempting to bring. It is being recommended that this case be dismissed without further leave to amend. If you disagree, you have 14 days to inform the court. Label your explanation “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and state the names of the defendants and the specific facts you could allege to state a claim. V. Order and Recommendation In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Distri
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DENNIS PETILLO, JR., No. 2:23-cv-2286-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. Plaintiff Dennis Petillo, Jr., a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the SAC fails to state a claim and should be dismissed without further leave to amend. I. Screening Requirement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000). 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 dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To state a cognizable 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.” Id. The facts alleged must “‘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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). II. Plaintiff’s SAC Plaintiff filed this lawsuit while he was an inmate at California State Prison-Sacramento. The SAC is difficult to read throughout and illegible in several places. Based on a review of the SAC, the court is unable to discern the names of the defendants whom plaintiff intends to sue or the relief that plaintiff seeks through this suit. Plaintiff mentions Associate Warden Anderson and appears to state “detail the warden intention to [torture] destroy [illegible] to defeat to ruin existence as of annih[i]late to cause death deceptive slaughter actual extreme pain.…” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff also mentions a few correctional captains by name, but the court cannot discern what specific actions or omissions plaintiff is alleging they took that violated his rights. (See id. at 2.) In short, the SAC’s factual allegations are incomprehensible to the court. III. Discussion By order dated December 15, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s initial complaint filed in this case and informed plaintiff that the allegations were so vague and conclusory that the court was unable to determine whether the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was provided legal standards and an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Id.) Upon reviewing plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the court attempted to screen plaintiff’s first amended complaint but could not do so “as much of the amended complaint is illegible due to plaintiff’s small and cramped handwriting. Further, the material is vague and confusing such that the court is unable to decipher plaintiff’s claims.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) Plaintiff was provided another opportunity to amend and was cautioned “[i]f the second amended complaint is illegible and/or vague and confusing, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.” (Id. at 1-2.) The court instructed plaintiff to focus on providing the “who, when, what, and how” facts underlying his claims. (Id. at 2.) Attempting again to conduct the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any defendant or defendants. The allegations in the SAC are incomprehensible and do not provide adequate notice regarding the actions of any defendant that constituted a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The court cannot discern any facts supporting a valid cause of action against any defendant. Accordingly, the SAC does not state a valid claim for relief and must be dismissed. Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). If, however, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). In this instance, further amendment would be futile because the deficiencies have not been cured and the factual allegations have not improved in clarity despite plaintiff being given two prior chances to amend. The SAC should be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English. This summary is not intended as legal advice. The court cannot understand the claims you are attempting to bring. It is being recommended that this case be dismissed without further leave to amend. If you disagree, you have 14 days to inform the court. Label your explanation “Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and state the names of the defendants and the specific facts you could allege to state a claim. V. Order and Recommendation In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 31, 2025 / ae / a /y Ze CAROLYNK. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8, peti2286.scrn.fr