1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-02390-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DENYING HIS MOTION TO APPOINT CORRECTIONS AND COUNSEL 15 REHABILITATION AND JEFF MACOMBER, ECF Nos. 2 & 3 16 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 18 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 19 ECF No. 1 20 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, brings this action alleging a host of broad inadequacies 23 throughout the California prison system administered by the California Department of 24 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). ECF No. 1 at 1-3. I recommend, for the reasons 25 stated below, this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will grant plaintiff’s 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and deny his motion for appointment of 27 counsel, ECF No. 3. 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges a broad collection of inadequacies within CDCR. First, he claims that, 3 from 2021 to 2024, he was subject to “dangerous and illegal prison conditions,” including denial 4 of library services, denial of religious books and food, a lack of disability accommodations, and 5 being threatened with false charges by unnamed officers. ECF No. 1 at 1. Second, he alleges that 6 the conditions on “M yard” at Kern Valley State Prison are dangerous and that he was beaten and 7 abused, though he does not say by whom. Id. Third, he claims that CDCR offers generally poor 8 healthcare to the inmates in its care. Id. In his case, he references thyroid problems and 9 hemorrhoids, but does not offer any specific claims related to these ailments. Id. Fourth, he 10 claims that prison officials offer “false hope” of sentence reductions by not providing inmates 11 with sufficient opportunity to take educational classes. Id. Fifth, he claims that CDCR has 12 denied inmate requests for relocation closer to friends and family. Id. at 2. Sixth, he claims that, 13 at Folsom State Prison, he was not offered proper accommodations under the Americans with 14 Disabilities Act. Id. Seventh, he claims that inmates are treated as “slaves” insofar as he and 15 some other inmates were not paid for work. Id. at 3. He does not elaborate or provide specific 16 instances of nonpayment. Id. Finally, he broadly alleges that CDCR prisons have adopted 17 “grossly illegal and unconstitutional practices” and that this action is intended to restore public 18 faith and trust. Id. 19 These allegations fail because they are, in effect, a broad and generalized indictment of 20 the prison system rather than an actionable claim or related set of claims that can reasonably be 21 addressed in litigation. As noted above, plaintiff raises claims regarding medical care, prisoner 22 safety, ADA accommodations, prison labor, and officer misconduct. None of these claims are 23 specific and many, as articulated, appear to implicate the rights of inmates who are not party to 24 this suit. This is not an instance in which a plaintiff has raised a set of unrelated claims that can 25 be subdivided. Plaintiff, it appears, has no intention of litigating discrete instances of misconduct 26 or unlawfulness; by his own admission, he intends this litigation to restore public faith and trust. 27 I now recommend that this action be dismissed. Typically, inmates who bring non-viable 28 claims in their initial complaint are offered at least once chance to amend. A review of plaintiff’s 1 litigation history, however, shows that he has repeatedly brought non-actionable suits in this 2 district. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:23-cv-52-DAD-CKD-PS at ECF Nos. 3 & 4 3 (Recommendations that plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations against city, two city 4 attorneys, and a city appointed receiver of property be dismissed. Recommendations 5 subsequently adopted.); Singh v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 2:23-cv-53-KJM-AC-PS at ECF 6 Nos. 7 & 9 (Recommendations that complaint be dismissed as frivolous adopted in significant 7 part, with the court declining only to dismiss the case with prejudice so that plaintiff might refile 8 with attorney assistance); Singh v. City of Placerville, No. 2:23-cv-54-DAD-KJN-PS at ECF Nos. 9 3 & 4 (Recommendations that action be dismissed and characterizing plaintiff’s complaint as 10 “lacking in facts and consist[ing] mostly of conclusory assertions.” Recommendations 11 subsequently adopted.). 12 In light of these recommendations, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an 13 attorney without prejudice. If these recommendations are not adopted, the issue may be revisited. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No.
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 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-02390-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DENYING HIS MOTION TO APPOINT CORRECTIONS AND COUNSEL 15 REHABILITATION AND JEFF MACOMBER, ECF Nos. 2 & 3 16 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 18 FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 19 ECF No. 1 20 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, brings this action alleging a host of broad inadequacies 23 throughout the California prison system administered by the California Department of 24 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). ECF No. 1 at 1-3. I recommend, for the reasons 25 stated below, this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will grant plaintiff’s 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and deny his motion for appointment of 27 counsel, ECF No. 3. 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges a broad collection of inadequacies within CDCR. First, he claims that, 3 from 2021 to 2024, he was subject to “dangerous and illegal prison conditions,” including denial 4 of library services, denial of religious books and food, a lack of disability accommodations, and 5 being threatened with false charges by unnamed officers. ECF No. 1 at 1. Second, he alleges that 6 the conditions on “M yard” at Kern Valley State Prison are dangerous and that he was beaten and 7 abused, though he does not say by whom. Id. Third, he claims that CDCR offers generally poor 8 healthcare to the inmates in its care. Id. In his case, he references thyroid problems and 9 hemorrhoids, but does not offer any specific claims related to these ailments. Id. Fourth, he 10 claims that prison officials offer “false hope” of sentence reductions by not providing inmates 11 with sufficient opportunity to take educational classes. Id. Fifth, he claims that CDCR has 12 denied inmate requests for relocation closer to friends and family. Id. at 2. Sixth, he claims that, 13 at Folsom State Prison, he was not offered proper accommodations under the Americans with 14 Disabilities Act. Id. Seventh, he claims that inmates are treated as “slaves” insofar as he and 15 some other inmates were not paid for work. Id. at 3. He does not elaborate or provide specific 16 instances of nonpayment. Id. Finally, he broadly alleges that CDCR prisons have adopted 17 “grossly illegal and unconstitutional practices” and that this action is intended to restore public 18 faith and trust. Id. 19 These allegations fail because they are, in effect, a broad and generalized indictment of 20 the prison system rather than an actionable claim or related set of claims that can reasonably be 21 addressed in litigation. As noted above, plaintiff raises claims regarding medical care, prisoner 22 safety, ADA accommodations, prison labor, and officer misconduct. None of these claims are 23 specific and many, as articulated, appear to implicate the rights of inmates who are not party to 24 this suit. This is not an instance in which a plaintiff has raised a set of unrelated claims that can 25 be subdivided. Plaintiff, it appears, has no intention of litigating discrete instances of misconduct 26 or unlawfulness; by his own admission, he intends this litigation to restore public faith and trust. 27 I now recommend that this action be dismissed. Typically, inmates who bring non-viable 28 claims in their initial complaint are offered at least once chance to amend. A review of plaintiff’s 1 litigation history, however, shows that he has repeatedly brought non-actionable suits in this 2 district. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:23-cv-52-DAD-CKD-PS at ECF Nos. 3 & 4 3 (Recommendations that plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations against city, two city 4 attorneys, and a city appointed receiver of property be dismissed. Recommendations 5 subsequently adopted.); Singh v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 2:23-cv-53-KJM-AC-PS at ECF 6 Nos. 7 & 9 (Recommendations that complaint be dismissed as frivolous adopted in significant 7 part, with the court declining only to dismiss the case with prejudice so that plaintiff might refile 8 with attorney assistance); Singh v. City of Placerville, No. 2:23-cv-54-DAD-KJN-PS at ECF Nos. 9 3 & 4 (Recommendations that action be dismissed and characterizing plaintiff’s complaint as 10 “lacking in facts and consist[ing] mostly of conclusory assertions.” Recommendations 11 subsequently adopted.). 12 In light of these recommendations, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an 13 attorney without prejudice. If these recommendations are not adopted, the issue may be revisited. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED without prejudice. 17 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without 18 leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 24 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 25 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 26 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 27 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ October 3, 2024 Q_—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28