Jones v. Baldwin et al

Filing 23

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/26/19 ORDERING the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's amended complaint 21 be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2559-EFB P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

C. BALDWIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action

18

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After dismissal of the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A (ECF No. 11), plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a substantially similar

20

second amended complaint, accompanied by a “memorandum” (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 17). On April

21

30, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s filings, deemed them deficient, and dismissed them with

22

leave to amend. ECF No. 20. Now, plaintiff has filed another “amended complaint” (ECF No.

23

21) and the court must screen it.
Congress mandates that district courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

24
25

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

26

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

27

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to

28

/////
1

1

state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who

2

is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

3

Screening Order

4

The court analyzed plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to § 1915A as follows:

5

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of various hand-written pages whose content
is often impossible to parse. The court is able to glean that: (1) on or about March
13, 2017, plaintiff was working as a porter at California State Prison, Solano; (2)
in the performance of his job duties plaintiff was attacked by another inmate
named Walker, who assaulted him with a punch to the jaw; (3) plaintiff sustained
“great bodily” injury as a consequence of this attack; and (4) he alleges that the
named defendants were responsible for failing to protect him. The difficulty in
understanding the specifics of plaintiff’s allegations and how, if at all, each of the
named defendants was directly responsible for failing to protect him, convinces the
court that the complaint does not put defendants on notice of the claims against
them. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that a
sufficiently plead complaint under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of
the claims against them.”). Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended
complaint that addresses this deficiency.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ECF No. 11 at 3. In an amended complaint, plaintiff attempted to correct the deficiency

15

identified by the original screening order by alleging that defendant correctional officers Baldwin,

16

Jackson and Qin were “on notice . . . that inmate workers were being exposed to dangerous

17

conditions without staff supervision” because of an inmate grievance that had been directed to

18
Baldwin. See ECF No. 16 at 9 (also alleging that the “grievances . . . were filed without any
19
20

response”). Plaintiff asserted that the defendants were both negligent and deliberately indifferent

21

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. Upon screening, the court dismissed those claims

22

explaining (1) that negligence will not support a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2)

23

that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing how any particular defendant was deliberately

24

indifferent to a known substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in violation of the Eighth

25

Amendment. ECF No. 20 at 2-3. The court informed plaintiff that he had essentially alleged his

26
attack was made possible because of inadequate staff supervision – a claim that rings only of
27
28

negligence. Id. at 3.
2

1

Plaintiff’s most recently filed “amended complaint” is a collection of his prior filings in

2

this case.1 There are no new allegations curing the deficiencies the court has identified. Thus, the

3

“amended complaint” filed on May 13, 2019 (ECF No. 21) must be dismissed for the reasons

4

stated in the court’s prior screening orders (ECF Nos. 11 & 20).

5

Leave to Amend

6

The court has already afforded plaintiff two chances to amend his complain, yet he is no

7

closer to stating a cognizable claim. Consequently, it declines to offer him further opportunity to

8

amend. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Repeated

9

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed is another valid reason for a

10

district court to deny a party leave to amend.”).

11

Conclusion

12
13

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United
States District Judge to this case.

14
15

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s “amended complaint” (ECF No. 21) be
DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

17

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

18

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

19

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

20

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

21

/////

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25
26
27
28

1

Specifically, pages 3-10, 15-22, and 34-36 are copies of the complaint and declaration
plaintiff previously filed at ECF No. 16. Pages 24-30 and 32-33 are copies of plaintiff’s filing at
ECF No. 17. The remaining pages consist of various cover pages, tables of contents, medical
records and other exhibits that are incapable of curing the deficiencies identified by the court. See
ECF No. 21 at 1-2, 11-14, 23, 31, 37-71.
3

1

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

2

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: November 26, 2019.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4