(PC) Davis v. Hill et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/1/2022 ORDERING within 30 days, plaintiff must either file an amended complaint or state his intent to stand by the current complaint, subjecting to a recommendation of dismissal for failure to state a claim. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a complaint form. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LLOYD CLIFTON DAVIS,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
RICK HILL, et al.,

12

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00407-TLN-JDP (PC)
SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:
(1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT
SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION
THAT IT BE DISMISSED; OR
(2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

ECF No. 10

14

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by

20

interfering with his legal mail and frustrating his access to the courts. Plaintiff’s complaint does

21

not state a cognizable claim against any defendant.
Screening Order

22
23

I.

Screening and Pleading Requirements

24

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental

25

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable

26

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

27

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

28

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
1

1

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not

4

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

5

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

6

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not

7

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,

8

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that

9

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264

10
11

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

12

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it

13

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

14

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

15

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

16

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,

17

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

18

II.

Analysis

19

Plaintiff alleges various instances of interference with his legal mail. ECF No. 10 at 4-6.

20

The complaint fails, however, to sufficiently link the interference with any of the four named

21

defendants; I cannot tell how each of the defendants is alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights.

22

To satisfy federal pleading standards, a complaint must put each defendant on notice as to

23

plaintiff’s claims against them. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).

24

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these shortcomings. If he decides

25

to do so, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa

26

County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended

27

complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D.

28

Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves
2

1

any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need

2

to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended

3

complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case

4

number.

5

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

6

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended

7

complaint or state his intent to stand by the current complaint, subjecting to a recommendation of

8

dismissal for failure to state a claim.

9

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

10

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:
14
15

August 1, 2022
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3