Richards v. Walensky

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARRY RICHARDS, Case No. 21-cv-05128-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 ROCHELLE P. WALENSKY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 9 11 Defendants.

12 On July 2, 2021, Plaintiff Larry Richards, representing himself, filed a complaint against 13 numerous Defendants, including various government officials and Dr. Masami Hattori 14 (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion asking the 15 Court to issue a temporary restraining order “restraining the Defendants from continuing to reduce 16 the quantities” of his prescriptions. Dkt. No. 3 at 4. On July 6, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 17 motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for a temporary restraining order without 18 prejudice. Dkt. No. 7 (“Order”) at 3. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended 19 complaint and renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. See Dkt. Nos. 8 (“FAC”), 9 20 (“Mot.”).1 21 The Court finds that the amended complaint again fails to state a claim on which relief may 22 be granted. The Court previously noted that Plaintiff “cannot file a piecemeal complaint or TRO 23 application.” Order at 7. But contrary to the Court’s instructions, Plaintiff has done so and 24 acknowledges that his new filings are deficient. See FAC at 2 –3 (noting he is not able to 25

26 1 Though Plaintiff did not file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he did not pay the filing fee, and the Court thus again screens the complaint under Section 1915(e)(2) to determine if 27 the complaint states a claim for relief. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 & n.8 1 “formulat[e] a proper complaint at this time”); id. at 12 (“This is only a partial and incomplete 2 complaint . . . .”); Mot. at 1 (“I just need another 10 to 15 days to finish this new portion of my 3 case . . . .”).2 Additionally, Plaintiff did not address the other deficiencies the Court identified in 4 its order. See Order at 3–4. Plaintiff must meet the basic pleading requirements to allow the 5 Court to evaluate whether there is a sufficient legal basis for the claims. For example, Plaintiff 6 references the Eighth Amendment right to medical treatment, but that amendment only applies to 7 prisoners (and while Plaintiff argues that he is a “prisoner in confinement to Defendants” 8 apparently based on their treatment decisions, it is clear he is not incarcerated). So it still is 9 entirely unclear what the adequate legal basis is for Plaintiff’s claim against any of the 10 Defendants, or what exactly each Defendant is alleged to have done that violated the law. 11 The Court thus DISMISSES the amended complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. And 12 the Court DENIES the motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to renewal 13 following the filing of a complaint that sufficiently alleges a claim for relief. 14 The Court will give Plaintiff one final chance to file an amended complaint and motion to 15 proceed in forma pauperis within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order. Prior to filing an 16 amended complaint, the Court directs Plaintiff to carefully review the notice of deficiencies from 17 the previous order and this order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed in its entirety 18 without further leave to amend if it does not correct the deficiencies the Court has identified. The 19 Court does not “have to,” Dkt. No. 9, and will not, consider piecemeal filings, “look up related 20 article[s],” Dkt. No. 8 at 6, or otherwise piece together Plaintiff’s claims. It is Plaintiff’s 21 responsibility to articulate a short and plain statement of his claims in a single complaint, as 22 explained in the Court’s prior order, and he should take whatever time he needs to satisfy the rules 23 that apply to this case. No temporary restraining order can issue, or even be considered, until 24 Plaintiff does this, because the Court still has no idea whether there is a viable legal claim here 25

26 2 Plaintiff again argues that the Court must accept the complaint as sufficient under Fourth Circuit authority. FAC at 4. The Court reiterates that, under binding Ninth Circuit authority, the Court 27 liberally construes the pleadings to do justice. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 1 (and one of the factors the Court must consider in deciding whether such a restraining order is 2 appropriate is the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims). 3 The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Pro Se 4 || Help Desk. Appointments can be made by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org or by calling 415—782- 5 8982. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 7/22/2021 9 Aspe 5 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 10 United States District Judge 11 12

(«14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28