Biagas v. Virga et al
Filing
54
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/27/18, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VINCENT J. BIAGAS, SR.,
12
No. 2:13-CV-2656-KJM-CMK
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
T. VIRGA, et al.,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
/
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 18).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
26
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
1
1
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
2
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
3
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must
4
allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support
5
the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
6
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
7
and conclusory.
8
9
10
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff’s claims remain unclear in his amended complaint. It does not appear
11
that he has limited the number of defendants to those related by the same claims, as he continues
12
to name various correctional officers, supervisors, and wardens as defendants to this action. As
13
with his original complaint, the amended complaint still fails to allege any specific facts, but
14
appears to allege various violations ranging from Due Process, medical treatment, obstruction of
15
justice, to failure to protect and inappropriate behavior by the correctional staff.
16
17
18
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from the same defects as his original
19
complaint. Specifically, plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
20
of Civil Procedure to state his claim simply, concisely, and directly. He continues to offer vague
21
allegations without alleging any factual support for claims. Plaintiff does not plead with
22
sufficient clarity any of his possible claims.
23
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory
24
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil
25
Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the
26
elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d
2
1
646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was provided specific direction on what was required to state
2
a claim as to each of the possible claims the court could decipher from his original complaint.
3
However, he has failed to follow the court’s direction and cure the defects in his complaint by
4
either limiting the claims to those related, or by alleging sufficient factual allegations as to each
5
named defendant. It therefore appears that plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to allege
6
sufficient facts to state a claim, and further leave to amend is unlikely to help.
7
8
III. CONCLUSION
9
Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
10
cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
11
the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
12
13
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be
dismissed.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
15
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
18
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
19
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21
22
23
DATED: August 27, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
3
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?