Cranford v. Narwarece

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING 1 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2017. First Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal due within thirty (30) days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHIE CRANFORD, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. (ECF No. 1) LAURA NARWARECE, THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on July 5, 19 2016 (ECF No. 1), is currently before the Court for screening. 20 I. Screening Requirement 21 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 22 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to 23 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 24 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 25 pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 26 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 27 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 28 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 1 1 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 2 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 3 not. Id. 4 II. Allegations in Complaint 5 Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. Plaintiff 6 names Psychiatric Technician Laura Narwarece (“Defendant”) as the sole defendant in this 7 action. Plaintiff alleges as follows: 8 On or about may 21st 2016 Laura Narwarcec displayed discrimination as well as racial discrimination laura was handing out snacks and plaintiff approuched to receve his snak all P.T. includeing lura delebertly dumped plaintiffs snake on the filthy floor all had a rill good laff when luara stated there you go now lick it up nice and cleen for your masters misstress and when I came time to shave plaintiff was the verry first in line to receve his razior ans laura delebertly made plaintiff whate untill the verry last to recevehis razior all defendants are eather mexical or black and plaintiff is white. 9 10 11 12 (ECF No. 1, p. 3) (unedited text). 13 14 Plaintiff also attached his first level appeal to the complaint, without explaining why he did so.1 Plaintiff demands relief in the form of monetary sanctions and injunctive sanctions. 15 III. 16 Discussion a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 17 Plaintiff reports that he has not brought any lawsuits while in custody. (ECF No. 1, p. 1). 18 However, a review of the Court’s own records reveals that Plaintiff’s assertion is not only a 19 misrepresentation, but also patently false. A court may take judicial notice of its own records in 20 other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). Therefore, the Court takes 21 judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff, while a civil detainee, has initiated more than thirty 22 previous cases concerning his conditions of confinement in this Court.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 If Plaintiff is attempting to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the Court advises him that he need not do so, as he is a civil detainee and is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000). 2 As a representative sample, the Court identifies the following ten cases: (1) Cranford v. Medina, Case No. 1:13-cv00210-EPG; (2) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00581-MJS; (3) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv00763; (4) Cranford v. Perryman, 1:13-cv-853-GSA; (5) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00854-SKO; (6) Cranford v. King, Case No. 1:13-cv-01658-SKO; (7) Cranford v. Smith, Case No. 1:13-cv-01886-LJO-BAM; (8) Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS; (9) Cranford v. Wyatt, Case No. 1:14-cv-00136-GSA; and (10) Cranford v. Tinna, Case No. 1;14-cv-00171-SAB. 2 1 In the past, Plaintiff has been sanctioned and admonished for not being truthful in his 2 representations to the Court. See Cranford v. Ahlin, 1:11-cv-01199-GBC, ECF No. 6; Cranford v. 3 Valley, 1:13-cv-0533 JLT, ECF No. 6. The Court even just recently admonished Plaintiff for 4 misrepresenting the number of cases he has been involved in as a civil detainee. See Cranford v. 5 Dirige, Case No. 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM, ECF Nos. 8, 10. Plaintiff also has been declared a 6 vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order for each new in forma pauperis case he files in this 7 Court after September 27, 2016. See Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS, 8 ECF No. 77. 9 In light of Plaintiff’s repeated disregard of his Rule 11 obligations, he is admonished that 10 the Court may issue sanctions for any future violations in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Local 11 Rule 110. 12 13 b. Equal Protection The Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination and racial discrimination as a 14 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil detainees 15 are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious 16 discrimination based on race, religion, or membership in a protected class, subject to restrictions 17 and limitations necessitated by legitimate penological interests. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 18 545-46 (1979). The Equal Protection Clause requires that all persons who are similarly situated 19 should be treated alike. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001); City of 20 Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). 21 An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant intentionally 22 discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's membership in a protected 23 class, Lee, 250 F.3d at 686; Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), or that 24 similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship 25 to a legitimate state purpose, Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 26 2005); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). 27 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant displayed discrimination and racial discrimination towards 28 him, but only mentions some facts about race and nothing else about any other kinds of protected 3 1 classes. To the extent that Plaintiff claims discrimination based on something other than race, he 2 fails to allege facts establishing that he was a member of a protected class. As such, the Court 3 cannot properly determine on what basis Defendant allegedly discriminated against Plaintiff, if 4 any. 5 Moreover, while race is a protected class, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that 6 Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race. While Defendant’s 7 alleged act of dumping Plaintiff’s snack on the ground and the statement she made afterwards 8 would be inappropriate behavior, nothing in the allegations indicates that Defendant acted that 9 way on account of Plaintiff’s race. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant made Plaintiff wait until the 10 end to receive his razor fails to allege any facts that Defendant did so because of Plaintiff’s race. 11 Furthermore, being members of different races by itself is insufficient to demonstrate 12 discrimination on the basis of race. Plaintiff at most alleges facts constituting a coincidence in this 13 regard. Accordingly, this claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 14 15 c. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff one 16 final opportunity to amend his complaint and cure the deficiencies in this order to the extent he is 17 able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000.) 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 19 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 20 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 21 right to relief above the speculative level….” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 22 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in 23 his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 24 complaints). 25 Finally, the Court advises Plaintiff that an amended complaint supersedes the original 26 complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 27 amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 28 pleading.” Local Rule 220. 4 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form; 3 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which 4 5 relief may be granted, with leave to amend; 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first 6 7 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and 4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 8 the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and 9 failure to obey a court order. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara January 13, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?