(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 (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 X. SHEEHAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed his third amended complaint. ECF No. 19 26. The complaint is, as discussed below, deficient because it fails to provide most of the named 20 defendants sufficient notice of the claims against them as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules 21 of Civil Procedure. I will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend so that he may 22 attempt to remedy its deficiencies. This will be his final opportunity to amend. 23 Screening Order 24 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 26 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 27 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff’s previous complaints suffered from a lack of clarity and organization, ECF No. 22 17 at 3, and the current one is no better. As before, he is suing nine defendants, alleging a variety 23 of claims related to false memorandums that were authored against him and an eventual denial of 24 elderly parole. The actual specifics of these claims are hidden amidst vague references, 25 unnecessary citations to case law, and incomplete references to state litigation and the internal 26 grievance process. After reviewing the complaint, I find that it would be unreasonable to expect 27 any of the defendants to grasp the specifics of the claims against them. As I suggested in a 28 1 | previous screening order, plaintiff should organize his claims by defendant and, without citing 2 | case law or engaging in digressions, explain how each wronged him in simple terms. 3 I will dismiss plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend so that he may attempt to remedy 4 | these deficiencies. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current 5 | complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The 6 | amended complaint should be titled “Fourth Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate 7 | case number. This will be plaintiffs final opportunity to amend. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 26, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 10 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 11 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 12 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 13 } result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 14 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 15 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ May 20, 2025 ow—— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28