LaQuinton D. Bowers, Sr v. James Hill et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) SCREENING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. For all these reasons, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing by February 17, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed-in whole or in part-based on the factual and legal deficiencies outlined above. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (Attachments: #1 Voluntary Dismissal Form) (clee)

Case 5:22-cv-02072-FLA-SK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-2072-FLA (SK)
Title
LaQuinton D. Bowers v. James Hill et al.

Date: January 18, 2023

Present: The Honorable: Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge
Connie Chung
Deputy Clerk

n/a
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) SCREENING ORDER 1

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner seeking to sue at least six correctional
officers from the California Institution for Men (CIM) for more than ten discrete
incidents based on an impermissible shotgun complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984);
Jaime v. Parts Auth. LLC, 2021 WL 3055041, at *7 (D. Ariz. July 20, 2021). The Court
must screen that complaint to “identify cognizable claims” from deficient ones,
including any that are “frivolous or malicious,” “fail[] to state a claim on which relief
may be granted,” or “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), (b)(1)-(2). As alleged, Plaintiff’s complaint is
deficient for many of these and closely related reasons. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e),
(h); Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).
First, Plaintiff cannot combine—in a single § 1983 suit—so many unrelated
incidents, especially since he is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Defendants may
not be joined that way unless Plaintiff’s claims arise “out of the same transaction [or]
occurrence” and raise “question[s] of law or fact common to all.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not
only to prevent the sort of morass that [a multi-claim, multi-defendant suit] produce[s]
but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation
Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may
1

This order is non-dispositive, so it is not immediately appealable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 799 (9th Cir. 1991). If Plaintiff
believes this order is dispositive, he must object to the order within 14 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), (b); L.R. 72-2.1; Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 & n.1 (9th Cir.
1996).

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 5

Case 5:22-cv-02072-FLA-SK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:61
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-2072-FLA (SK)
Title
LaQuinton D. Bowers v. James Hill et al.

Date: January 18, 2023

file without prepayment of the required fees.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff wants to sue
for potentially more than ten unrelated events:


For false imprisonment, unsafe living conditions, medical malpractice,
sexual assault, lost property, and racial injustice against Defendant Hill.
(ECF 1 at 3, 5-6).



For miscalculation of sentence credits against Defendant Roble. (Id. at 3).



For verbal harassment, use of force, and retaliation against Defendant
Vasquez. (Id.).



For falsifying documents, planting contraband, and putting him in
uncomfortable housing against Defendants Guthrie, Parker, and Castillo.
(Id. at 4).

Because these allegations involve different occurrences at different times with different
parties (even if any were to present common questions of law or fact), Plaintiff—or the
Court—must sever each actionable set of incidents from the others. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
21; Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2013). And for each
action, Plaintiff must either pay the required fees or file separate IFP applications.
Second, even if Plaintiff’s mis-joined suits were severed, the following kinds of
claims are not actionable as federal claims in federal court at all:


Defendants sued in their official capacities. A “suit against a state
official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but
rather is a suit against the official’s office” and thus “is no different from a
suit against the State itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989). But the State of California and its agencies (like the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) are immune from suit for
damages under the Eleventh Amendment. See Welch v. Tex. Dep’t of
Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472-74 (1987); Brown v. Cal.
Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009).



Defendants (like Hill) sued only as supervisors. Vague and
conclusory allegations in civil rights complaints about the involvement of
supervisory personnel are insufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d
266, 268 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Governmentofficial defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 5

Case 5:22-cv-02072-FLA-SK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:62
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-2072-FLA (SK)
Title
LaQuinton D. Bowers v. James Hill et al.

Date: January 18, 2023

violated the constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). A
supervisor’s mere “knowledge and acquiescence” in their subordinate’s
actions cannot establish liability, nor is it enough that the supervisor
oversees deputy personnel who allegedly engaged in the constitutional
violation. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).


Inadequate medical care because of negligence or malpractice.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004). Similarly, “a difference of medical
opinion between a prisoner and his treating physicians regarding the
appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference” actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Conway v. Linn
Cnty., 2008 WL 5071672, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 24, 2008).



Claims for stolen property. The “unauthorized intentional deprivation
of property by a state employee” is not actionable under the Fourteenth
Amendment because there is “a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for
the loss” under California law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533
(1984); see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994).



Miscalculation of credits against a custodial sentence. “A
prisoner’s challenge to the wrongful deprivation of credits toward his
sentence must be brought in a habeas petition”—not a civil rights lawsuit.
Martinez v. Asuncion, 2019 WL 5580969, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019)
(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973)).



Derogatory, harassing, or racist remarks. While morally
reprehensible, racist comments and the like do not by themselves create a
federal cause of action. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012).



Procedures used in disciplinary hearings that affected no
protected property or liberty interest. Only proceedings that lead to
“atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life” are guaranteed procedural due process. Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 473 (1995). Thus, for instance, enduring
indignities because of alleged procedural irregularities during a
disciplinary hearing cannot state a federal due process claim. See Butts v.
Ibarra, 2020 WL 4676375, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020).

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 3 of 5

Case 5:22-cv-02072-FLA-SK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:63
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-2072-FLA (SK)
Title
LaQuinton D. Bowers v. James Hill et al.

Date: January 18, 2023



Mere false accusations or falsification of reports. A prisoner has
no standalone federal “right to be free from false accusations.” Garrott v.
Glebe, 600 F. App’x 540, 542 (9th Cir. 2015); see Jackson v. Baca, 2014
WL 4093425, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) (“[T]he falsification of
disciplinary reports does not state a standalone constitutional claim.”).



Mental or emotional distress with no predicate physical injury.
“No federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or
emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of
physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

Third, Plaintiff cannot proceed in federal court with a “shotgun” complaint. A
complaint is a “shotgun pleading” when (1) it fails to differentiate between defendants
such that it is impossible to determine which defendant is accused of what, (2) there are
no factual allegations that can be logically organized into each count in the complaint, or
(3) the complaint is filled with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts unconnected to a
particular cause of action. See Jaime v. Parts Auth. LLC, 2021 WL 3055041, at *7 (D.
Ariz. July 20, 2021); Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc.,
2015 WL 12777092, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015).
Here, Plaintiff’s abstract and conclusory assertions like “racial injustice,”
“retaliation,” or “uncomfortable housing” (ECF 1 at 3, 4) cannot proceed since they
neither assert a cognizable legal theory under federal law nor allege any supporting
nonconclusory facts. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149
(9th Cir. 2011); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). And while
sexual assault or use of force can violate the Constitution, Plaintiff must still provide
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). That means Plaintiff must provide some dates,
names, and other facts that coalesce around an actionable claim. See Nagrampa v.
MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“claim” must be
comprised of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief”); Schmidt v.
Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming dismissal of ambiguous and
unintelligible complaint). It is not the Court’s job to plead Plaintiff’s complaint for him:
“a liberal interpretation of a [pro se] civil rights complaint may not supply essential
elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
268 (9th Cir. 1982).
**********
For all these reasons, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing by February
17, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed—in whole or in part—based on the
factual and legal deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff may satisfy this order by
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 4 of 5

Case 5:22-cv-02072-FLA-SK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:22-cv-2072-FLA (SK)
Title
LaQuinton D. Bowers v. James Hill et al.

Date: January 18, 2023

voluntarily dismissing this action using the attached form CV-09. Cases voluntarily
dismissed do not count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which caps the number of
lawsuits that state prisoners may file in federal court without prepayment of filing fees.
Or Plaintiff may file an amended complaint fixing the curable deficiencies—including by
severing any incidents that cannot be combined in the same complaint under Rule 20.
(Severed claims must be filed separately as new actions—with separate IFP applications
or full payment of the filing fees.) Plaintiff is cautioned, though, that he may be denied
further leave to amend if he cannot “state a viable claim without contradicting any of the
allegations of his original complaint.” Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837,
846 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).
WARNING: If Plaintiff files no notice of voluntary dismissal, no amended
complaint, or no written response to this order by February 17, 2023, this action may
be dismissed involuntarily for failure to prosecute with no further warning. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 5 of 5