Brown v. Beard et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/15/18 plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANCE L. BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-CV-0370-DMC-P

v.

ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges

19

Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him competent and appropriate

20

medical care, violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, violated his Fourteenth

21

Amendment equal protection and due process rights, and violated the cruel and unusual

22

punishment and due process and equal protection provisions of the California constitution. For

23

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

3

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

5

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

6

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a “…short and

7
8

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See McHenry v.

9

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)). Detailed factual

10

allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

11

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

12

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s

13

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v.

14

Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

15

omitted).

16

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their

17

pleadings liberally construed and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

18

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be

19

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer

20

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation

21

marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The

22

sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with

23

liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks

24

omitted); Moss, 572F.3d at 969.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
2

II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

1
2

In a meandering, voluminous, and difficult to interpret complaint, Plaintiff seems

3

to allege Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him access to competent

4

and appropriate medical care. It is not entirely clear from the complaint Plaintiff’s exact

5

argument regarding this claim. Plaintiff further alleges a violation of his rights under the Fifth

6

Amendment’s due process clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal

7

protection clauses. These claims are even less clear. Plaintiff provides little factual connection

8

between the alleged violations and the actions of any of the Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff alleges

9

Defendants violated the California constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and

10

equal protection provisions. These claims include no factual allegations connecting any of the

11

Defendants to the alleged violations.

12
13
14

III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s complaint and the over 100 pages of attached documents fail to meet the

15

pleading requirement of a “…short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

16

entitled to relief.” See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. Thus, the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint

17

does not meet the Rule 8 requirement for a short and plain statement of the claim showing an

18

entitlement to relief.

19

Plaintiff names multiple defendants who are not mentioned in the complaint and

20

who have seemingly no connection with any of the alleged violations. It is unclear how

21

defendants Bread, Gipson, Valenzuela, Swarthout, Parano, Ancona, Ortiz, Meyers, Does one

22

through twenty, the Medical Authorization Review Committee, and the Institutional Utilization

23

Management Committee are related to this case and what, if any, role they played in the alleged

24

violations of Plaintiff’s rights. Additionally, of those Defendants that are discussed in the

25

complaint – Taylor, Griffin, Haar, Barber, Zamora, Fleschman, and Smiley – it is unclear how

26

they violated defendant’s Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

27
28

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court will,
however, grant plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
3

1

IV. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

2

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

3

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

4

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

5

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

6

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

7

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

8

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

9

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

10

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be

11

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

12

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

13

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

14

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

15

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

16

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

17

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

18

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

19

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

20

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply

21

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

22

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

V. CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

4

2.

Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

5

service of this order.

6
7
8

Dated: November 15, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5