(PS) Jefferson v. Stockwell

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 06/04/2024 GRANTING #2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." (Nair, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVIS C. JEFFERSON,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID STOCKWELL,

Case No. 2:24-cv-01441-DJC-JDP (PS)
ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
SCREENING HIS COMPLAINT, AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendant.
ECF Nos. 1 & 2

17
18

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant David Stockwell, the Director of Veterans

19

Affairs (“VA”), Northern California Health Care System. His complaint’s allegations, however,

20

are insufficient to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before

21

recommending dismissal. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No.

22

2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).

23

Screening and Pleading Requirements

24

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed

25

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and

26

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

27
28
1

1

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

2

relief. Id.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

13

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

Analysis
The complaint’s limited allegations are difficult to follow and are insufficient to apprise

22

defendant and the court of the specific claim plaintiff is attempting to allege. Plaintiff expresses

23

frustration with the VA’s healthcare services, alleging that he was required to make five

24

appointments to obtain medical care. ECF No. 1 at 5. He appears to believe the appointments are

25

unnecessary because the VA has already diagnosed his medical condition. Id. Plaintiff states that

26

this case is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

27

Id. at 4.

28
2

1

Plaintiff’s allegations are inadequate to state a claim under the ADA. As an initial matter,

2

plaintiff cannot sue defendant Stockwell in his individual capacity for violation of the ADA. See

3

Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that “a plaintiff cannot bring an

4

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights

5

created by Title II . . .” ). More fundamentally, “because the ADA’s definition of public entity

6

encompasses only state and local governments and their instrumentalities, it is well settled that

7

the ADA does not provide a cause of action against the federal government.” Bosworth v. United

8

States, 2016 WL 4168852, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks

9

omitted); see 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); see also Agee v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 284, 289 (Fed. Cl.

10

2006) (holding that “Congress has not waived the Federal Government's sovereign immunity with

11

regard to ADA claims”).

12

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim for violation of Title VII of the Civil

13

Rights Act, he has failed to do so. Like his ADA claim, plaintiff’s Title VII claim cannot be

14

asserted against Stockwell in his individual capacity. And Stockwell is not a proper defendant for

15

an official capacity claim. In a Title VII discrimination action, “the head of the department,

16

agency, or unit as appropriate, shall be the defendant.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). But more

17

significantly, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any allegations showing that he was subjected

18

to disparate treatment on account of his race.

19

I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this

20

action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint

21

will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th

22

Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face

23

without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended

24

complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended

25

complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each

26

defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First

27

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an

28

amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.
3

1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.

3

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

4

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

5

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in

6

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

7

3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
Dated:
11
12

June 4, 2024
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4