# (PC) Davis v. Pam

> District Court, E.D. California · November 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031639

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031639

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEMETRIUS DAVIS, No. 2:21-cv-0634 KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 PAM, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, housed in the Sacramento County Jail, proceeding without
18 counsel.1 Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis.
19 On October 25, 2021, plaintiff filed a document he claims is his second amended complaint. As
20 set forth below, plaintiff’s filing is insufficient; therefore, plaintiff is granted an additional thirty
21 days in which to file a signed second amended complaint that complies with prior screening
22 orders, as well as the instant order.
23 First, plaintiff failed to sign the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff is required to
24 sign all documents submitted to the court for filing. Second, plaintiff’s document fails to include
25 a caption setting forth the name of each individual he is suing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Third, Rule
26 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure articulates that the complaint must contain:
27

28 1 Plaintiff is an AB 109 inmate serving his prison sentence in county jail. (ECF No. 6.)
1 (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim
2 needs no new jurisdictional support;
3 (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief; and
4
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
5 alternative or different types of relief.
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Indeed, the federal rules provide an official Appendix of Forms “intended to
7 indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.” McHenry v.
8 Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.)2 The court (and defendant)
9 should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at
10 1177. This court’s civil rights form incorporates such simplicity and brevity, providing boxes for
11 prisoners to mark the appropriate cause of action. Plaintiff is not required to provide evidence or
12 exhibits or cite legal authorities in his proposed second amended complaint; rather, he must
13 simply state the facts upon which his putative claims are based.
14 Fourth, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim based on any alleged delay in
15 receiving a workers compensation form or being denied workers compensation benefits. In
16 California, the Workers’ Compensation Act grants the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
17 exclusive authority to hear claims “[f]or the recovery of [workers’] compensation, or concerning
18 any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto.” Cal. Labor Code § 5300(a); see also
19 U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lee Invs. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). The statute
20 establishes “exclusive jurisdiction within the workers’ compensation system for ‘all disputes over
21 coverage and payment.’” Mitchell v. Scott Wetzel Servs., Inc., 227 Cal. App. 3d 1474, 1480
22 (1991). Because exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the California workers’ compensation system,
23 this court lacks jurisdiction over any claim pertaining to workers compensation.

24 2 Indeed, the standard negligence complaint contains only three short paragraphs: “1. Allegation
of jurisdiction. [¶] 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston,
25
Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who was then
crossing said highway. [¶] 3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and
26
was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body
27 and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one
thousand dollars. [¶] Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of
28 _____ dollars and costs.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 9.
1 Plaintiff is reminded that “[a] showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient
2 to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” (ECF No. 7 at 6, citation
3 omitted.) “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.” Id.
4 Finally, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim against an individual based
5 solely on such individual’s role in supervising another defendant. To prevail on a claim under
6 § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory
7 right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
8 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
9 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the
10 defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between
11 the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v.
12 Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.
13 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the
14 unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
15 In conclusion, Rule 11(a) provides that the court must provide a party with an opportunity
16 to re-submit the pleading bearing his signature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Therefore, plaintiff is
17 provided an additional thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint that bears his
18 signature, clearly identifies each individual named as a defendant in the caption, and otherwise
19 complies with this order and prior screening orders. Plaintiff is required to file his second
20 amended complaint on the form used by this court.
21 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in an order striking
22 the unsigned second amended complaint and recommending that this action be dismissed based
23 on plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25 1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to re-file a second
26 amended complaint, using the court’s form complaint, that bears his signature, clearly identifies
27 the named defendants, and complies with this order and prior screening orders, the requirements
28 of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the
1 || second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled
2 || “Second Amended Complaint.”
3 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights
4 || complaint.
5 || Dated: November 10, 2021
Foci) Aharon
7 KENDALL J. NE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8 || /davi0es4.14amd.eot
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031639. Public record. Not legal advice.