Canada v. Jones

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/16/2017 GRANTING plaintiff's 9 , 12 request to proceed IFP. Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent CDCR order. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD LEE CANADA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:17-cv-1322 CKD P ORDER J. JONES, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States 20 Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 21 22 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 24 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 25 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 26 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 27 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 28 ///// 1 1 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 2 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 5 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 10 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 13 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 14 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 15 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 16 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 17 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 18 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 19 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 20 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 21 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 22 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 23 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 24 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 25 and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 26 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 2 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The 3 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 4 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief concerning mental health treatment. Plaintiff’s complaint 5 concerns treatment he received while committed to the California Department of State Hospitals. 6 But when plaintiff filed his complaint, he was housed at North Kern State Prison, and is now 7 housed at the California Health Care Facility. If plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in an amended 8 complaint, he must explain exactly what sort of relief he seeks and the basis for the relief which 9 must concern the treatment he is now receiving. He must also identify a defendant, such as a 10 primary care physician, whom the court could order to provide the relief requested. 11 To the extent plaintiff seeks damages in an amended complaint, he must explicitly say so 12 and plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be 13 no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 14 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 15 Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 16 are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 17 It appears plaintiff complains about the use of excessive force. In order to adequately 18 allege a claim for damages based upon excessive force, plaintiff must allege facts showing the 19 amount of force used by a defendant was unnecessary and resulted in a wanton infliction of pain. 20 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives 21 rise to a federal cause of action. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010). But, the malicious 22 and sadistic use of force to cause harm generally violates contemporary standards of decency. Id. 23 Plaintiff also suggests he was retaliated against for filing grievances or other complaints 24 while housed with the Department of State Hospitals. Prison officials generally cannot retaliate 25 against inmates for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th 26 Cir. 1985). A First Amendment retaliation claim has five elements: 1) the retaliated-against 27 conduct is protected; 2) a defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff; 3) there is a causal 28 connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action; 4) the defendant's acts would 3 1 chill future First Amendment activities of a reasonable person; and 5) the retaliatory action did 2 not advance legitimate correctional goals. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 3 2012). The court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint 4 5 complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 6 reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 7 supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 8 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 9 case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 10 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 11 Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has several lawsuits pending in this court. In his 12 amended complaint, plaintiff shall not include any claims upon which he is still proceeding in an 13 action filed prior to this one. 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9 & 12) is granted. 16 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 17 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 19 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 20 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 21 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 23 number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 4 1 amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 2 be dismissed. 3 Dated: November 16, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 1 cana1322.14 9 10 11 12 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?