McInnis v. Vaughn et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/16/2017 GRANTING 6 Motion to Proceed IFP; DENYING 7 Request for Court to Add Damien Pace as a Plaintiff; and GRANTING Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff does n ot file an amended complaint, action will proceed on Plaintiff's claim arising under 8th Amendment against Herrera. Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All fees to be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to Yolo County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MCINNIS, 12 No. 2:17-cv-1318 CKD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 VAUGHN, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a Yolo County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States 21 Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 22 23 24 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 25 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect 26 twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, 28 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s complaint states a 6 7 claim against defendant Herrera upon which relief could be granted arising under the Eighth 8 Amendment for excessive force as alleged by plaintiff in claim II. In all other respects, plaintiff’s 9 complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 10 At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed only on the claim 11 identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies with respect to other claims in an amended 12 complaint. 13 If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is informed as follows: 14 1. His original complaint is, at times, impossible to understand because it is 15 indecipherable. In an amended complaint, plaintiff should take care to write legibly and in a 16 manner which can be understood. 17 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), plaintiff may join in one action 18 as many claims as he has against one defendant. Other defendants can be joined to claims, but 19 claims which are only against other defendants generally must be brought in a separate action. 20 3. In order to state a claim for damages, plaintiff must allege facts indicating a causal 21 connection between the actions of a defendant and the injury sustained by plaintiff. See Barren v. 22 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 23 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 24 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 25 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 26 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 4. Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action 1 2 shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 3 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 5. Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 4 5 violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 6 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when injury occurs as a result of the 7 individual’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Id. 8 6. Prison officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First 9 Amendment rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a prisoner’s 10 First Amendment rights are necessarily curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires 11 a finding that “the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the 12 correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Id. at 532. 13 The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional 14 goals for the conduct of which he complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 16 amended pleading complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in 17 itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 18 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 19 Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in 20 the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 21 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 22 Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has asked to add another inmate as a plaintiff to this 23 case. That request will be denied as an action brought by multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding 24 pro se presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from the 25 frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions, the changes in address that occur 26 //// 27 ///// 28 ///// 3 1 when inmates are released to parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who attempt to 2 communicate with each other and with un-incarcerated individuals.1 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted. 5 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 6 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 8 Yolo County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 9 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint that complies with the 10 terms of this order. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within 30 days, this action 11 will proceed on plaintiff’s claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Herrera. 12 4. Plaintiff’s request that the court add Damien Pace as a plaintiff in this action (ECF No. 13 7) is denied. 14 Dated: November 16, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 mcin1318.1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court has broad discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to add and drop parties. 4

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?