STEVEN MICHAEL WISE, Case No. 26-cv-01408-RMI
Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE v. TO AMEND
ARAMARK, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 9 Defendants.
Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must do more than recite elements of a cause of action and state conclusions; rather, a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court has explained the standard this way: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 2. Legal Claims Plaintiff raises numerous claims regarding his confinement at the San Francisco County Jail. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), plaintiff must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991); accord Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel LP, 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8). “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort of “morass” that a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of required fees.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Plaintiff alleges that a judge denied him bail in violation of the Eighth Amendment, jail deputies slammed doors in the middle of the night when detainees were sleeping, the food portions were too small, jail officials did not respond to his inmate grievance appeals, a doctor had plaintiff perform an exam on himself in front of other detainees, he was being served peanut butter which he is allergic to and staff ignored his requests to be placed on a special diet, and he was placed in a unit with gang members and he is a former gang member. Plaintiff is no longer in custody in San Francisco County. Plaintiff presents multiple unrelated claims and identifies no individual defendants. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to focus on a few related claims. Plaintiff must also identify defendants by name and specifically describe how they violated his rights. Plaintiff is advised that the allegations against the judge fail to state a federal claim. He is also informed that with respect to his allegations that officials did not respond to his grievances, there is no constitutional right to an administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). These allegations also fail to state a claim. Plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Although district courts may “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis as Plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). ] The Court has not found any circumstances in this case that are sufficiently “exceptional” to 2 warrant appointment of counsel at this time. The Court determines that this action does not present 3 complex legal issues, and Plaintiff has ably presented his claims. The motion is denied without 4 prejudice. 6 1. The motion to appoint counsel (dkt. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 7 motion to expedite and for an evidentiary hearing (dkt. 9) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 8 Court will
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STEVEN MICHAEL WISE, Case No. 26-cv-01408-RMI
Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE v. TO AMEND
ARAMARK, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 9 Defendants.
Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must do more than recite elements of a cause of action and state conclusions; rather, a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court has explained the standard this way: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 2. Legal Claims Plaintiff raises numerous claims regarding his confinement at the San Francisco County Jail. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), plaintiff must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991); accord Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel LP, 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8). “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort of “morass” that a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of required fees.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Plaintiff alleges that a judge denied him bail in violation of the Eighth Amendment, jail deputies slammed doors in the middle of the night when detainees were sleeping, the food portions were too small, jail officials did not respond to his inmate grievance appeals, a doctor had plaintiff perform an exam on himself in front of other detainees, he was being served peanut butter which he is allergic to and staff ignored his requests to be placed on a special diet, and he was placed in a unit with gang members and he is a former gang member. Plaintiff is no longer in custody in San Francisco County. Plaintiff presents multiple unrelated claims and identifies no individual defendants. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to focus on a few related claims. Plaintiff must also identify defendants by name and specifically describe how they violated his rights. Plaintiff is advised that the allegations against the judge fail to state a federal claim. He is also informed that with respect to his allegations that officials did not respond to his grievances, there is no constitutional right to an administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). These allegations also fail to state a claim. Plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Although district courts may “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis as Plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). ] The Court has not found any circumstances in this case that are sufficiently “exceptional” to 2 warrant appointment of counsel at this time. The Court determines that this action does not present 3 complex legal issues, and Plaintiff has ably presented his claims. The motion is denied without 4 prejudice. 6 1. The motion to appoint counsel (dkt. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 7 motion to expedite and for an evidentiary hearing (dkt. 9) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The 8 Court will determine at a later date if any type of hearing is required. 9 2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 10 standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of 11 the date this order is filed, and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 12 and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint 13 completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to 14 present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate 15 || material from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time 16 will result in dismissal of this case. 17 3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court Zz 18 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of 19 Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 20 may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 41(b). 23 Dated: April 28, 2026
25 BERT M. ILLMAN 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28