the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 14 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”
How later courts described this case
- the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 14 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”
- a person subjects another to the 28 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 1 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation
- federal question jurisdiction exists if at least 10 one claim in the complaint arises under federal law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 STANLEY CARL SAHM, No. 2:21-cv-1436-JAM-EFB P
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER
13 B. HAILE,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel. He commenced this civil action in the Solano County
17 Superior Court and defendant Haile removed it to federal court on August 11, 2021.1 Defendant
18 requests that the court screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismiss any
19 claims that are frivolous, malicious, or which fail to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 2. After
20 reviewing the complaint pursuant to § 1915A, the court concludes that it fails to state a
21 cognizable claim and must be dismissed with leave to amend.
22 Jurisdiction
23 Except where Congress otherwise dictates, a defendant may remove to federal court “any
24 civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
25 jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil
26 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
27
1 Defendant was served on July 13, 2021. ECF No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2. No other defendants are
28 named. See id. at 2, ¶ 4.
1 “If a case is improperly removed, the federal court must remand the action because it has no
2 subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department
3 of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts have an
4 independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493
5 U.S. 215 (1990).
6 Plaintiff’s complaint references violations of his right to due process, the Americans with
7 Disabilities Act, and “cruel and unusual punishment.” ECF No. 1-1 at 12, 15, 18. Thus, plaintiff
8 has raised federal claims over which this court has jurisdiction. See Ultramar America, Ltd. v.
9 Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1413-1414 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal question jurisdiction exists if at least
10 one claim in the complaint arises under federal law). This court may exercise supplemental
11 jurisdiction over any state-law claims provided that they “are so related to claims in the action
12 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article
13 III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
14 Having concluded that federal question jurisdiction exists, the court turns to the screening
15 of the complaint.
16 Screening Requirements
17 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
18 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
19 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
20 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
22 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
23 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
24 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably
25 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona,
26 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute
27 on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490
28 /////
1 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded,
2 has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id.
3 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
4 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
5 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
6 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
7 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more
8 than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
9 allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations
10 omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that
11 merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original)
12 (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1216 (3d
13 ed. 2004)).
14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
15 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
16 Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
18 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint
19 under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
20 Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading
21 in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
22 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
23 Screening Order
24 Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening. It identifies Dr. B. Haile as the sole
25 defendant, but there are no allegations showing what Haile did (or failed to do) that caused a
26 violation of plaintiff’s federal civil rights. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint
27 clearly identifying each claim and each defendant.
28 /////
1 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal
2 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
3 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d
4 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the
5 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal
6 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.
7 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44
8 (9th Cir. 1978).
9 The purported violations alleged in the instant complaint appear to be based on the
10 following: (1) the relocation of plaintiff on December 2, 2018, which plaintiff refers to as a “bed
11 move” that caused plaintiff pain and suffering; (2) a delay in the processing of plaintiff’s
12 “administrative/Americans with Disabilities appeals”; (3) the denial of medication for arthritis
13 and bursitis/sciatica; (4) inadequate treatment for an ingrown toenail; and (5) the denial of single
14 cell status. However, as noted, the complaint fails to allege what, if anything, Dr. B. Haile did or
15 failed to do in connection with any of those events that somehow violated plaintiff’s rights.
16 Further, to the extent plaintiff intends to assert an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
17 indifference to medical needs he must show that the defendant, acting with a state of mind more
18 blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with his treatment. See Farmer v.
19 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Further, the
20 court notes that a delayed response to an administrative appeal does not violate due process, as
21 there are no constitutional requirements regarding how a grievance system is operated. See
22 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th
23 Cir. 1993).
24 Leave to Amend
25 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only
26 persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional
27 rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the
28 deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to
1 perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also
2 include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that
3 “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
6 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
7 George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as mentioned above, may he bring unrelated claims against
8 multiple defendants. Id.
9 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
10 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
11 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
12 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
13 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
14 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
15 1967)).
16 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above
17 requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual
18 background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his
19 amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing
20 and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names
21 actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in
22 which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court.
23 Conclusion
24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
25 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1, Ex. A) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days
26 from the date of service of this order. Failure to comply with any part of this this order
27 may result in dismissal of this action; and
28 /////
] 2. Defendant’s request for a screening order and for an extension of time to file a responsive
2 pleading (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot.
3 || DATED: October 14, 2021.
4 tid, PDEA
5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28