(PC) Rojas v. Hernandez

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 RICHARD ROJAS, No. 2:25-cv-1050 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a), his request will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(2). 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 7 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 8 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 9 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 10 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 11 arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); 12 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 . 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 16 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 17 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 18 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . “A claim has facial 19 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 20 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . When 21 considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must 22 accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the 23 complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 236 24 (1974). 25 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The 27 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 28 ///// 1 One of the primary problems with plaintiff’s complaint is that he has violated court rules 2 regarding joinder of claims. Plaintiff identifies at least 40 different defendants. Under Rule 20 of 3 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against different 4 defendants. Simply put, plaintiff cannot join claims against defendant B that have nothing to do 5 with those brought against defendant A. 6 Also, many of plaintiff’s allegations are vague, conclusory, or not facially plausible. If 7 plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 8 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 9 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named 10 defendant is involved. Vague and implausible allegations of conspiracy do not suffice. There can 11 be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 12 between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 13 (1976). In short, each claim must be supported by facts demonstrating the “who, what, where, 14 why, and when” of the events. 15 Plaintiff brings claims under California law such as defamation. But plaintiff fails to 16 plead compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff is informed that before he may 17 proceed on a claim arising under California law in this court he must comply with the terms of the 18 California Tort Claims Act and then plead compliance. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.; 19 Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470 , 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Complaints must 20 present facts demonstrating compliance, rather than simply conclusions suggesting as much. 21 Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (2007). 22 Plaintiff complains about conditions of confinement. Under the Eighth Amendment, 23 prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from harmful conditions of confinement. Farmer 24 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). A prison official may be held liable for subjecting an 25 inmate to harmful conditions of confinement if an injury is sufficiently serious, and that the 26 prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. Id. at 834, 837 . Thus, the relevant 27 inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a 28 sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation 1 omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must both be aware of facts from which the 2 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 3 inference.” Id. 4 Plaintiff asserts he has been subjected to sexual assault by prison staff while he was 5 sleeping. Sexual assault, harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer violates the 6 Eighth Amendment. Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012). Malicious and 7 sadistic intent, normally required for a finding of use of excessive force, is presumed if an inmate 8 can demonstrate that a sexual assault occurred. See id. at 1050–51 9 Plaintiff also asserts he has been retaliated against by prison officials. Prison officials 10 generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo v. 11 Dawson, 778 F.2d 527 , 531 (9th Cir. 1985). In order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must 12 point to facts indicating a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected 13 conduct. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). 14 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 15 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 16 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 17 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 19 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 20 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 22 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 23 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 24 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 26 number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 2 || be dismissed. 3 | Dated: September 2, 2025 Card Kt | / ye □□□ 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 6 — — 7 — 8 | 1 9 rojal050.14 — 10 — 1] — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —