(PC) Torres v. Newsome et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/28/2025 GRANTING 5 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING 1 Complaint with leave to amend. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABRAHAM L. TORRES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2447-JDP (P)

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOME, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, brings this action against

19

numerous defendants, alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1.

20

The complaint is deficient because it fails to provide most of the named defendants with sufficient

21

notice of the claims against them and because it contains multiple, unrelated claims against more

22

than one defendant. I will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend so that he may

23

remedy these deficiencies. I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5.

24

Screening Order

25

I.

26

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

27

Screening and Pleading Requirements

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

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

II.

Analysis

22

Plaintiff alleges that on August 13, 2024, his cellmate tested positive for Covid-19. ECF

23

No. 1 at 6. He claims that after staff were made aware of the positive test, they failed to isolate

24

his cellmate and, instead, forced plaintiff to continue housing with the infected inmate. Id. As a

25

result, plaintiff claims that he contracted the virus. Id. at 8. Substantively, this allegation is

26

sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation. The complaint, however, is non-compliant

27

with Rule 8 insofar as its allegations as to each named defendant are not simple, concise, or

28

direct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Instead, the complaint makes its allegations generally and without
2

1

explaining how each defendant was involved in the violation of plaintiff’s rights. Some

2

defendants, like Governor Newsom or Warden St. Andre, are not alleged to have had any

3

personal involvement whatsoever. Indeed, many of the defendants listed in the caption are absent

4

from the allegations raised in the complaint itself. Others, like Alkire and McNaught, are alleged

5

to have interacted with plaintiff in the days following the violation and failed either to extract him

6

or to move his cellmate. ECF No. 1 at 12. Plaintiff alleges, however, that the supervising officer,

7

an unnamed captain, had already indicated that no change was to be made. Id. Thus, it is unclear

8

which if any defendant was responsible for the decision to force him to house with an infected

9

cellmate.

10

I also find that plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation, as articulated, appear insufficiently

11

related to his original medical claims to proceed in the same action. He alleges that defendants

12

Bell, Ramos, Gomez, Gaminchi, and Kelly have levelled “retaliatory practices” at him on a daily

13

basis in retaliation for his use of the prison grievance system to complain about the original

14

incident. Id. Plaintiff does not allege that any of these defendants were involved in the initial

15

failure to safeguard his health. Instead, he alleges that these defendants engaged in various

16

retaliatory incidents in the days that followed. These incidents are legally and factually separate

17

from the medical claims, and litigating them in the same lawsuit appears inappropriate. See Fed.

18

R. Civ. P 20(a)(2).

19

Lastly, as a matter of organization, it is unnecessary for plaintiff to repeat allegations he

20

has already made at the start of each section of the complaint. Doing so unnecessarily lengthens

21

the complaint and forces the reader to sift through redundant paragraphs to grasp the entirety of

22

his allegations.

23

I will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend so that he may remedy the

24

deficiencies in his complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the

25

current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en

26

banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the

27

appropriate case number.

28
3

1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.

3

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

4

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended

5

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

6

4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may

7

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed

8

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

9

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

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:
13
14

January 28, 2025
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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