(PC) Hunter v. Patterson

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAVID HUNTER, No. 2: 23-cv-2376 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DIAN PATERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Introduction 18 Plaintiff, who is housed at Atascadero State Hospital, is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks 19 relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to [20] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 22 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). 23 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 24 Screening Standard 25 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 26 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 27 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 28 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, [1] 490 U.S. at 327 . The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 2 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 3 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 4 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 5 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 6 1227. 7 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 8 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 9 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 10 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 11 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 12 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 13 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 . 14 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 15 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 16 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 , citations and internal 17 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 18 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 , and construe the 19 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 236 20 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 21 Discussion 22 Named as defendants are State Agents Dian Paterson, Cindy Paterson, Debbie Paterson, 23 Cindy Williamson and Dian Williamson. Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to understand. 24 Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant Dian Paterson participated in some kind of cover-up to 25 prevent the Sacramento County Jail from being shut down. Plaintiff appears to allege that the 26 cover-up was “[p]erpetrated by PC Ricky Mandeville. See on Screening record video tape 27 recording camera flaws.” Plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to clean up mail fraud. 28 Plaintiff requests release to a half-way house and money damages. 1 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 2 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 3 court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint 5 must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. 6 Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646 , 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some 7 degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. 8 Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint 9 must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file an amended complaint. 10 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 11 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 12 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 13 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 14 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 15 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371 ; May v. Enomoto, 633 16 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 17 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 , 18 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 19 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 20 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 21 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 22 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 23 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 24 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 25 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 26 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 27 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 28 //// 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 1s granted. 3 2. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. 4 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 5 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 6 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 7 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 8 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 9 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 10 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 11 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 12 || dismissal of this action. 13 || Dated: October 30, 2023 i Aectl Aharon 15 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [18] 19 Hunt2376.14 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] DAVID HUNTER, No. 2: 23-cv-2376 KJN P [11] Plaintiff, [12] v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT [13] DIAN PATERSON, et al., [14] Defendants. [15] 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: [19] 20 ________________________________ Plaintiff