Scott v. Eliason
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER. Plaintiffs Motions to Review the Amended Complaint (Dkts. 8 and 13 ) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion to Direct Defendants to Answer (Dkt. 11 ) is DENIED. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Order and the Initial Review Order (Dkt. 7 ), this entire case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)
Case 1:22-cv-00227-BLW Document 14 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ALEX DAVID TONY SCOTT,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00227-BLW
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY
SCOTT ANDERS ELIASON, M.D.,
Plaintiff Alex Davis Tony Scott is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action. The Court previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, determined that it failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. See Initial
Review Order, Dkt. 7.
Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 8. The Court retains its
screening authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to remedy the deficiencies in the initial Complaint. Therefore, the Court will
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A.
Screening Requirement and Pleading Standards
As explained in the Initial Review Order, the Court must dismiss a prisoner or in
forma pauperis complaint, or any portion thereof, that states a frivolous or malicious
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1
Case 1:22-cv-00227-BLW Document 14 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 4
claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(d)(2) & 1915A(b).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim for
relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a
plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff has offered a few more details in the Amended Complaint, but he still has
not stated a plausible § 1983 claim. Plaintiff complains that Defendant tries to offer
unwanted medical treatment and force him to take medication. However, as Plaintiff’s
attached grievance forms indicate, prison medical providers have consistently informed
Plaintiff that, although he has a right to refuse any treatment, they still must schedule him
for appointments and offer him treatment—indeed, it is their legal obligation to do so.
See generally Am. Compl. at ECF p. 6–10. Providers have also informed Plaintiff that the
form he signs to refuse medical treatment is good only for a single appointment. Id. Thus,
all Plaintiff has to do to avoid medical treatment is to sign one of these forms at each
appointment. Therefore, his Eighth Amendment claims are implausible.
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2
Case 1:22-cv-00227-BLW Document 14 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 4
Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims are also implausible. As the Court previously
explained, Defendant’s alleged disparaging remarks about Plaintiff’s religion do not
plausibly constitute a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s religious exercise. See Dkt. 7 at
13–15; Hernandez v. Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989).
For the foregoing reasons, the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal.
Although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, “a liberal interpretation of
a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982). Because Plaintiff has already been given the opportunity to amend and still has
failed to state a plausible claim for relief, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint
with prejudice and without further leave to amend. See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106,
1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his
pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the
litigant simply cannot state a claim.”).
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motions to Review the Amended Complaint (Dkts. 8 and 13) are
Plaintiff’s Motion to Direct Defendants to Answer (Dkt. 11) is DENIED.
The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Order and the Initial
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3
Case 1:22-cv-00227-BLW Document 14 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 4
Review Order (Dkt. 7), this entire case is DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1).
Alternatively, this case is dismissed for failure to comply with District of
Idaho General Order 342, which, among other things, limits pro se prisoner
complaints to 20 pages and prohibits exhibits that do not relate to
exhaustion of administrative grievances.
DATED: January 18, 2023
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4
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?