(PC) Trevino v. Sheehan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TREVINO, Case No. 2:23-cv-0235-DC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 X. SHEEHAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against nine defendants and alleges that they violated his 19 constitutional rights by retaliating against him for filing lawsuits, resulting in a denial of elderly 20 parole. The complaint, however, is flawed insofar as it contains multiple, unrelated claims 21 against more than one defendant. I will give plaintiff a final opportunity to amend and remedy 22 both this and the other deficiencies identified below. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that 23 claims and defendants be dismissed so that only related claims remain. 24 Screening Order 25 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 II. Analysis 22 Plaintiff has filed a lengthy complaint that appears to raise two insufficiently related 23 claims. First, he broadly contends that the named, non-board of parole defendants retaliated 24 against him for filing other federal lawsuits. ECF No. 18 at 5. He claims that part of this 25 retaliation included the generation of a false report that was used to deny him elderly parole. Id. 26 Second, he alleges that parole board erred in failing either to investigate the memo’s falsity or to 27 afford him an opportunity to defend himself against the false report. Id. at 8-9. These claims bear 28 some factual relation, but they are ultimately unsuited to litigation in the same action. The 1 | retaliation claim involves different defendants and a separate, factual question: whether the 2 | defendants authored or ignored false allegations to retaliate against plaintiff for filing lawsuits. 3 | The claim against the board is, by contrast, a procedural one that focuses on whether the board 4 | fulfilled the requisite due process requirements in denying plaintiff parole. There is no practical 5 | overlap in these claims, and success in one has no bearing or relation on the other. Multiple, 6 | unrelated claims against more than one defendant belong in separate suits. See George v. Smith, 7 | 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 8 Additionally, a final opportunity to amend will permit plaintiff to bring his complaint into 9 | better compliance with Rule 8. As with his previous filing, the complaint is lengthy and includes 10 | unnecessary recitations of case law, arguments related to exhaustion, and summations of state 11 || court proceedings. This extraneous material renders it difficult for the reader to determine the 12 || exact scope and nature of claims against each defendant. 13 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that remedies these deficiencies. He is advised 14 | that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 15 | 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Third 16 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 19 | complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that only his 20 | retaliation claims proceed and that his claims related to denial of parole be dismissed without 21 | prejudice. 22 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( q oy — Dated: _ February 10, 2025 ow—— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE