(PC) Taylor v. State of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:25-cv-2816 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this Court 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now 20 before the Court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to 21 amend. 22 I. SCREENING STANDARDS 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 25 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 2 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 3 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 4 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 5 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 6 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 7 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 9 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 10 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. 11 Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a 12 complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 13 question, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading 14 in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 15 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 16 II. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is difficult to parse because he includes apologies, 18 statements concerning filings in other courts, mentions retaliation, mail tampering, prosecutorial 19 vindictiveness, and defamation, and claims none of the doctors addressed plaintiff’s chronic renal 20 disease, yet claims his civil suit is not about his kidney (ECF No. 14 at 6:7-8). Other than 21 referencing his chronic renal disease, plaintiff does not specifically address injuries, or set forth 22 relief he seeks through this action. 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 This Court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint so vague and conclusory 25 that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for 26 relief. The Court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain 27 statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 28 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 1 succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 2 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 3 support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. The Court will, however, grant 5 leave to file a second amended complaint. 6 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 7 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how 8 the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 9 statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second amended 10 complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no 11 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 12 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. 13 Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 14 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 15 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 16 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 17 Local Rule 220; See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 18 (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non- 19 existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original or 20 prior pleading is superseded and treated as non-existent. See Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008. 21 Finally, plaintiff is required to file his second amended complaint on the form provided by 22 the Court. This will ensure that plaintiff includes the name of each individual he intends to sue, 23 what each individual did that allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights, plaintiff’s injuries, the relief he 24 seeks, and that the second amended complaint bears his signature. Plaintiff’s claims must be set 25 forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 26 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which 27 was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff should 28 identify what each defendant did or did not do that violated plaintiff’s rights. ] Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 2 | that this action be dismissed. 3] V. CONCLUSION 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. 6 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 7 || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 8 || of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the 9 || docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiffs 10 || second amended complaint must be filed on the form provided by the Clerk of Court. Failure to 11 | file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 12 || that this action be dismissed. 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 14 || complaint by a prisoner. 15 16 || Dated: May 8, 2026 A aA Cn Ye \L CHI SOO KIM 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 ayi2g16.14amd 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:25-cv-2816 CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 18 filed on ______________ (date). 19 20 Second Amended Complaint 21 (Check this box if submitting a Second Amended Complaint; must 22 be filed on court’s civil rights complaint form.) 23 24 DATED: 25 ________________________________ Plaintiff 26 27 28