Johnson v. Camacho et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/5/18 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either a first amended complaint in accordance with this order, or a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON COUCH JOHNSON,

12

No. 2:18-cv-00173-MCE-KJN (PS)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

MARCOS CAMACHO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Brandon Couch Jonson, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, has

17
18

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.)

19

Plaintiff’s application in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing

20

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in

21

forma pauperis.
The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

22
23

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

24

time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

25

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

26

an immune defendant.

27
28

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
1

1

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

2

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

3

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

4

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

5

490 U.S. at 327.
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked

6
7

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

8

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words,

9

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

10

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

11

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

12

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

13

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

14

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

15

the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

16

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.

17

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

18

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

19

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear

20

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

21

pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll

22

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th

23

Cir. 1984).
Construed liberally, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint attempts to bring a claim under 42

24
25

U.S.C. § 1983 for illegal seizure on November 7, 2016, and on December 28, 2016, in violation

26

of his Fourth Amendment rights.2 (See ECF No. 1.) However, plaintiff has not explained the

27
28

2

Plaintiff also invokes the Fourteenth Amendment in his complaint. However, it is well
established the claims for illegal seizure and excessive force must be brought under the Fourth
2

1

details that precipitated his arrests. He vaguely describes that, even though he did not break any

2

laws, he was arrested at gun point, without elaborating further. (Id.) Moreover, plaintiff claims

3

that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, without

4

providing any factual basis to support these conclusory allegations of conspiracy. (Id.)

5

Additionally, toward the end of the complaint, plaintiff requests “the Court to issue [a]

6

writ of habeas corpus directed to Scott Jones, Sacramento County Sheriff.” (Id. at 9.)

7

Procedurally, plaintiff must seek a writ of habeas corpus in an independent action. The court

8

cannot consider that request in the instant civil action.

9

Furthermore, it appears that plaintiff has improperly joined Scott Jones as a defendant in

10

this action, in any event. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), individuals may be

11

joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief asserted against them arises out of the

12

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and any question of law

13

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. See also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

14

607 (7th Cir.2007) (“Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits”). If

15

unrelated claims are improperly joined, the court may dismiss them without prejudice.

16

Fed.R.Civ.P. 21; Michaels Building Co. v. Ameritrust Co., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir.1988)

17

(affirming dismissing under Rule 21 of certain defendants where claims against those defendants

18

did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrences, as required by Rule 20(a)).

19

Here, it is unclear what factual basis supports including Scott Jones in an action for illegal

20

arrest, where he was not present. Aside from the conclusory and unsupported allegations of

21

conspiracy, it appears that plaintiff’s complaints against Scott Jones—which themselves are

22

vague and conclusory—deal with the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s incarceration (see ECF

23

No. 1), an unrelated matter that should be brought in a separate action.

24

For these reasons, the complaint is subject to dismissal.

25

Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that

26

plaintiff could allege additional facts to potentially state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the court finds

27
28

and not the Fourteenth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (U.S. 1989).
3

1
2

it appropriate to grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.
If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended

3

Complaint,” shall be typed or written in legible handwriting, shall address the deficiencies

4

outlined in this order, and shall be filed within 28 days of this order.

5

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order

6

to make plaintiff’s first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

7

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an

8

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is

9

filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

10

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. If

11

plaintiff determines that he is unable to amend his complaint in compliance with the court’s order

12

at this juncture, he may alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims without

13

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28 days of this order.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

16

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

17

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint in

18

accordance with this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without

19

prejudice.

20

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by

21

the required deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including potential

22

dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23

41(b).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2018

26
27
14/ps.18-173.johnson v. comacho.ifp.dis.leave

28
4