(PC) Suggett v. Solano County Justice Center

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 LAYLA SUGGETT, No. 2: 23-cv-1353 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., [15] Defendants. [17] 18 Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s amended complaint is 20 dismissed with leave to amend. 21 On September 27, 2023, the undersigned issued an order screening plaintiff’s original 22 complaint. (ECF No. 5.) In claim one of the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was 23 denied Adderall previously prescribed to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). 24 (Id.) The undersigned found that claim one stated potentially colorable claims for relief against 25 defendants Roesler and Nevarez. (Id.) The undersigned found that claim one did not state 26 potentially colorable claims for relief against defendants Wellpath Medical and Hagen. (Id.) 27 //// 28 //// 1 In claim two of the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that psychological consultations at 2 the Solano County Jail were not confidential. (Id.) The undersigned found that claim two stated 3 potentially colorable claims for relief against defendants Wellpath Medical and Wong. (Id.) The 4 undersigned found that claim two did not state potentially colorable claims for relief against 5 defendant Hagen. (Id.) 6 In the September 27, 2023 order, the undersigned also dismissed all claims in the original 7 complaint against defendant Solano County Justice Center because Solano County Justice Center 8 is not a proper defendant. (Id.) The undersigned also dismissed all claims in the original 9 complaint against defendant Pillay because plaintiff failed to link defendant Pillay to the alleged 10 deprivations. (Id.) 11 The September 27, 2023 order granted plaintiff leave to amend as to those claims found 12 not potentially colorable in the order: 13 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Wellpath Medical, Wong, Roesler and Nevarez with those claims found 14 potentially colorable above or she may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state cognizable claims as to those claims found not 15 colorable above. 16 (Id. at 10.) 17 Plaintiff’s amended complaint names as defendants Solano County Justice, Wellpath 18 Medical, Sergeant Bettencourt and Officer Parrott. (ECF No. 7.) As discussed herein, plaintiff’s 19 amended complaint does not include any of the claims raised in the original complaint. 20 In claim one of the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on March 28, 2023, 21 defendants Bettencourt and Parrott moved inmate Vega from her modular worker position to the 22 laundry. (Id. at 3.) Defendants Bettencourt and Parrott then moved plaintiff from the laundry to 23 the modular worker position. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that changing the work positions of plaintiff 24 and inmate Vega made them automatic enemies. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that within an hour of 25 plaintiff becoming a modular worker, an anonymous note was dropped on plaintiff regarding 26 drugs. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff’s cellmate gave plaintiff a drink containing drugs. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff later tested positive for drugs. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that her cellmate set her up by 28 giving her a drink containing drugs. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Bettencourt and Parrott 1 allowed this to happen by placing plaintiff in harm’s way. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff claims that there is 2 now false information in her medical records regarding her alleged drug use. (Id.) 3 In claim two, plaintiff appears to claim that the false information in her medical records 4 regarding her drug use interfered with her treatment for ADHD. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff also alleges 5 that her medical history is tainted by this false information. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the false 6 information regarding her alleged drug use impacts every decision regarding her daily activities. 7 (Id.) 8 When the language of an order clearly states that a plaintiff may only amend to address 9 certain deficiencies identified in the order, courts have held that a plaintiff is barred from adding 10 new claims or parties. White v. City of West Sacramento, 2022 WL 16748701 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. 11 Nov. 7, 2022) (citing Benton v. Baker Hughes, 2013 WL 3353636 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 12 2013); see also Manago v. City of Barstow, 2022 WL 4280663 , at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2022) 13 (“When the language of an order clearly states that plaintiff may only amend to address certain 14 deficiencies in the order, courts [in this circuit] have held that a plaintiff is barred from adding 15 new claims or parties.” (internal citations omitted)). 16 The September 27, 2023 order granted plaintiff leave to amend only as to those claims 17 addressed in that order. Plaintiff was not granted leave to raise new and unrelated claims. 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed because it includes claims that were not raised in the 19 original complaint and discussed in the September 27, 2023 order. Plaintiff is granted thirty days 20 to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies of those claims found not colorable in 21 the September 27, 2023 order. 22 Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint must be complete in itself without 23 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220; see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 24 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 25 treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). 26 If plaintiff decides not to proceed on the claims raised in the original complaint and 27 discussed in the September 27, 2023 order, she may file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this 28 action. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed; 2 || plaintiffis granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint and 3 || to return the attached notice of election; failure to comply with this order will result in a 4 | recommendation of dismissal of this action. 5 || Dated: October 16, 2023 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Sugg1353.ame [6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 LAYLA SUGGETT, No. 2: 23-cv-1353 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 13 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, et al., [14] Defendants. [16] Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows: [17] ______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with her claims in the original complaint alleging [18] violation of her right to privacy against defendants Wellpath Medical and 19 Wong and violation of her right to adequate medical/mental health care against defendants Wellpath Medical, Wong, Roesler and Nevarez. [20] ______ Plaintiff consents to dismissal of those claims found not colorable in the 21 September 27, 2023 screening order without prejudice. 22 OR 23 _____ Plaintiff opts to file a second amended complaint and delay service of process. The proposed amended complaint is attached. [24] 25 DATED: 26 _______________________________ Plaintiff