(PC) Brownlee v. Cueva

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, Case No. 2:25-cv-3009-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. CUEVA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against defendants D. Cueva, the Warden of 19 the California Medical Facility (“CMF”), and seven correctional officers: Perez, Schooler, Jones, 20 Noriega, Juarez, Murphy, and Torres. She1 alleges that the correctional officers violated her 21 Eighth Amendment rights when they used excessive force against her. After review of the 22 amended complaint, I find that, for screening purposes, plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth 23 Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Perez, Schooler, Jones, Noriega, Juarez, 24 Murphy, and Torres. Her claims against Cueva, by contrast, are non-cognizable as articulated. 25 Plaintiff shall indicate whether she desires to proceed only with her Eighth Amendment claim 26 against the officer defendants, or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. I 27 1 Plaintiff refers to herself using feminine pronouns in the complaint, and I will do the 28 same in this order. If this is incorrect, plaintiff may state as much in a future filing. 1 will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. 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 alleges that on February 6, 2023, defendants Perez, Schooler, Jones, Noriega, 27 Juarez, Murphy, and Torres used excessive force against her. ECF No. 1 at 7-11. The allegations 28 are sufficient, for screening purposes, to state a viable Eighth Amendment claim against these 1 | seven defendants. By contrast, plaintiffs claims against Warden Cueva are insufficient. She 2 | vaguely alleges that Cueva “allowed” his staff to assault her and had “full knowledge” of the 3 | assault his employees were perpetrating. Jd. at 12-13. She neither provides specific allegations 4 | of Cueva’s involvement nor explains how he had knowledge that the assault would occur. Vague 5 | and conclusory allegations of supervisory involvement are insufficient. See Ivey v. Bd. of 6 | Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 7 Plaintiff may either proceed only with her claim against the correctional officer 8 | defendants, or she may delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. She is 9 | advised that the amended complaint must be titled ““Amended Complaint,” must be complete in 10 | and of itself, and will supersede the current complaint. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 12 1. Within thirty days, plaintiff may confirm her intent to proceed only with the 13 | Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Perez, Schooler, Jones, Noriega, Juarez, Murphy, 14 | and Torres or, within that same time, file another amended complaint with the understanding that 15 | doing so will delay service of any defendant. 16 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 17 | order. 18 3. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 27, 2026 ow—— 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28