(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)

Download PDF
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

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?