Cooks v. California State Prison Solano, et al.,

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/2018 DISMISSING the complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES R. COOKS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-2309-MCE-EFB P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
SOLANO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. He originally brought this action

18
19

in the Placer County Superior Court. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Defendants removed the action to this

20

court on November 2, 2017. ECF No. 1. Attached to their notice of removal is a copy of

21

plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1-1. Defendants now request that the court screen the complaint

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, or which fail

23

to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 1 at 2. After reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court

24

concludes that it fails to comply with the federal rules of civil procedure. Further, it does not

25

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim to relief. However, plaintiff will be given leave to

26

amend his complaint.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

I.

Jurisdiction

2

Except where Congress otherwise dictates, a defendant may remove to federal court “any

3

civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

4

jurisdiction . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil

5

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6

“If a case is improperly removed, the federal court must remand the action because it has no

7

subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department

8

of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts have an

9

independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493

10

U.S. 215 (1990).

11

Here, plaintiff has raised at least one federal claim. He alleges that defendants have

12

interfered with his legal mail by opening it outside of his presence, delaying both its receipt and

13

transmission, and sometimes preventing him from receiving his legal mail altogether. ECF No. 1-

14

1 at 11. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recognized inmates’ First

15

Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir.

16

1995). And more recently the Ninth Circuit has held that “prisoners have a protected First

17

Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence.” Hayes

18

v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). Consequently, the court concludes that

19

it has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. See Ultramar America, Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412,

20

1413-1414 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal question jurisdiction exists if at least one claim in the

21

complaint arises under federal law). In turn, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

22

plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims provided that they “are so related to claims in the action

23

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article

24

III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

25

Having concluded that federal question jurisdiction exists, the court turns to screening of

26

sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint.

27

/////

28

////
2

1
2

II.

Screening Requirements
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

3

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

4

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

5

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

6

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

7

A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

8

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

9

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

10

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona,

11

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute

12

on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490

13

U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded,

14

has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id.

15

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the

16

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of

17

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

18

544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

19

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more

20

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

21

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations

22

omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that

23

merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original)

24

(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d

25

ed. 2004)).

26

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

27

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

28

Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
3

1

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

2

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint

3

under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

4

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading

5

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

6

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

7

III.

8
9

Screening Order
At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff’s complaint, despite having been removed from

state court, is now subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1)

10

(“These rules apply to a civil action once it is removed from state court.”). The complaint, which

11

encompasses thirty-three dense, hand-written pages, is difficult to parse. Plaintiff has not ordered

12

his claims in a legible way, i.e. by organizing them into discrete sections which clearly identify

13

how each defendant personally violated his rights. Instead, plaintiff devotes large sections of the

14

complaint to oblique legal conclusions like “[e]ach [of the] defendants’ actions created a

15

substantial risk of forseeable (sic) harm, and dangerous conditions through personal lack of due

16

care . . . .” ECF No. 1-1 at 11. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1), requires that “each

17

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” The allegations in the immediate complaint do

18

not comply with this requirement and are so vague and conclusory that that a defendant could not

19

reasonably be expected to frame a responsive pleading based on those allegations.

20

IV.

Leave to Amend

21

Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended

22

complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial

23

way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

24

1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act,

25

participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the

26

alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so

27

closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28

28

U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4

1
2

The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).

3

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See

4

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against

5

multiple defendants. Id.

6

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself

7

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended

8

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the

9

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114

10

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter

11

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

12

1967)).

13

Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above

14

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual

15

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his

16

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing

17

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names

18

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in

19

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court.

20

V.

Conclusion

21

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within

22

30 days. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled

23

“Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that

24

this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

25

Dated: June 14, 2018.

26
27
28
5