(PC) Buris v. Sacramento County Jail

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY B. BURIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-2760-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a detainee in the Sacramento County Jail, has filed an amended complaint 19 alleging that an unnamed nurse gave him the incorrect medication, causing him to suffer 20 disorientation and tremors. ECF No. 15 at 2. He also claims that, after filing a grievance, another 21 unnamed “head nurse” stated that she would need to review video of the drug being administered, 22 which the jail would not supply. Id. The only defendant named is the jail itself. After review of 23 the amended complaint, I find that it cannot proceed past screening. I will give plaintiff one final 24 opportunity to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. I will deny plaintiff’s 25 motion for and extension of time and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 14, and his motion to 26 dismiss non-felony traffic citations, ECF No. 16. 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening Standards 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding administration of the wrong drug are not suitable to 27 proceed. Assuming plaintiff intends to bring a claim against either unnamed nurse, he has failed 28 to allege that either acted objectively unreasonably, or with “something akin to reckless 1 disregard.” See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). Indeed, he 2 alleges nothing about his interactions with either nurse, other than alleging that one gave him the 3 wrong medicine and that the other could not take any action on his grievance without access to 4 video evidence.1 And plaintiff’s claim against the jail itself is non-cognizable because the jail is 5 not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983. See Campos v. W. Cnty. Det. Facility, No. 6 25-cv-06190-RMI, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210535, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (“Plaintiff 7 cannot sue the jail itself under section 1983 as the jail is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the 8 law.”). To the extent that the complaint can be interpreted to bring a claim against Sacramento 9 County, plaintiff has failed to allege that any custom or policy was the moving force behind his 10 injury. 11 I will give plaintiff one final opportunity to amend so that he may address this issue. He is 12 advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 13 County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled 14 “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 15 Additionally, I will deny plaintiff’s pending motions. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 16 forma pauperis has already been granted, ECF No. 13, and an extension of time to obtain a copy 17 of his trust account is unnecessary. Additionally, plaintiff’s request for an appointment of 18 counsel form is denied. Plaintiff may file a motion requesting counsel, but he is advised that he 19 has no right to counsel in a civil action and that I will seek volunteer counsel only in 20 circumstances where a claimant appears incapable of presenting his own claims or other unique 21 circumstances warrant appointment. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss non-felony traffic citations 22 does not belong in this action. Indeed, it is submitted on a form for the Sacramento County 23 Superior Court. ECF No. 16 at 1. This court does not have jurisdiction or control over his traffic 24 citations. 25 26 27 1 A grievance response attached to the complaint appears to indicate that this footage was 28 not available. ECF No. 15 at 5. ] Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs first amended complaint, contained in ECF No. 15, is DISMISSED with 3 | leave to amend. 4 2. 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 3. 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 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 10 5. Plaintiff's motions for extension of time, ECF No. 14, and to dismiss non-felony traffic 11 | citations, ECF No. 16, are DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ March 3, 2026 q———_ 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28