Johnson v. Mill Creek State Prison et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/23/17 ORDERING this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEITH D. JOHNSON,
MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court
is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 19).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must
allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support
the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
As with the original complaint, plaintiff’s hand-written and largely indecipherable
complaint mentions “malpractice” and “deliberate indifference” but does not contain any factual
allegations. Because the amended complaint fails to state any claim for relief, it will be
dismissed. Further, because plaintiff appears unwilling or unable to amend the complaint to set
forth any factual allegations as to any named defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to further leave to
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
DATED: August 23, 2017
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?