(PC) Nance v. Unknown
Filing
24
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/18/2020 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due 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
DELARA LARISHA NANCE,
12
No. 2:20-cv-0894 WBS DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
UNKNOWN,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is a former county inmate1 proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint for screening. For the
19
reasons set forth below, the court will recommend dismissal of this action.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 1, 2020. On screening, this court found plaintiff stated
22
no cognizable claims for relief under § 1983. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff then filed a first amended
23
complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Again, this court was unable to determine either the constitutional
24
claims plaintiff was attempting to allege or the person or persons plaintiff contended violated
25
plaintiff’s rights. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was also dismissed with
26
////
27
28
1
Plaintiff informed the court on October 20 that they are no longer in custody.
1
1
leave to amend. On October 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No.
2
22.)
3
SCREENING
4
As described in this court’s prior screening orders, the court is required to screen complaints
5
brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim
7
in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In
8
addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the
9
deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person
10
‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he
11
does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which
12
he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.
13
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
14
DOES PLAINTIFF STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM?
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, like the prior complaints, fails to identify any
15
16
defendants. Nor does plaintiff explain with any specificity just what conduct they are
17
challenging. Plaintiff simply states that they were denied medical, dental, and psychiatric care at
18
the Sacramento County Jail.
In the court’s prior screening orders, plaintiff was informed that to state a claim, they must:
19
20
(1) identify a jail official; (2) explain what that official has done; (3) explain why that official’s
21
conduct amounted to a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) describe the relief
22
plaintiff is seeking. (See ECF No. 16 at 3-4; No. 21 at 2-3.) Plaintiff was also informed of the
23
standards to state claims for the denial of medical care, for the denial of hygiene supplies, and for
24
interference with the right to practice religion. (ECF No. 16 at 4-8.) Despite these instructions,
25
plaintiff fails to identify a defendant, explain what that defendant has done, or explain why that
26
defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
27
////
28
////
2
1
As this point, this court finds any further attempts to amend the complaint would be futile.
2
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is no closer to stating a claim for relief than was his
3
original complaint.
4
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after
8
being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
9
the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
10
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
11
may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
12
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
Dated: November 18, 2020
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/nanc0894.SAC scrn fr
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?