(PC)Calderon v. Allison

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JUAN C. CALDERON, No. 2:21-cv-01896-CKD P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 K. ALLISON, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42

18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a

21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted.

22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§

23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the

24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court.

25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account

28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

1 I. Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

2 As part of his complaint, plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 1 at 22-

3 23. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section

4 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional

5 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28

6 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

7 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional

8 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as

9 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

10 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not

11 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional

12 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of

13 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that

14 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

15 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

16 meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

17 counsel at this time.

18 II. Screening Requirement

19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

20 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

21 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

22 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

24 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

25 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

26 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

27 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

28 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

1 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

2 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

3 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

4 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

5 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

6 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

7 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

8 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

9 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

10 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

11 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

12 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and

13 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

14 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

15 III. Allegations in the Complaint

16 Plaintiff is a Mexican national serving a 21 year-to-life sentence at Mule Creek State

17 Prison (“MCSP”). Named as defendants in this action are the Director of the CDCR, the Warden

18 and Associate Warden of MCSP, as well as various John Doe medical and correctional officers

19 employed at the prison. The factual allegations in the complaint are based on events that

20 commenced after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff alleges

21 that since that time defendants have engaged in a targeted conspiracy to harass him and to deprive

22 him of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff specifically contends that he was deliberately exposed to

23 the chicken pox and COVID-19 viruses at various times, and then denied adequate medical care.

24 In retaliation for his filing of grievances, plaintiff’s cell has been searched and his property has

25 been destroyed. Plaintiff additionally alleges that he has been assaulted by numerous cellmates

26 who learned of plaintiff’s commitment offense from defendants who failed to protect him from

27 these acts of violence. In his last claim for relief, plaintiff contends that defendants “have

28 conspiratorially censored, obstructed and disposed of most, or all of [p]laintiff’s outgoing mail

1 without any legitimate penological jurisdiction.” ECF No. 1 at 18. By way of relief, plaintiff

2 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages.

3 IV. Legal Standards

4 The following legal standards are being provided to plaintiff based on his pro se status as

5 well as the nature of the allegations in his complaint.

6 A. Linkage

7 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

8 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

9 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

10 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a

11 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

12 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

13 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

14 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must

15 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

16 plaintiff's federal rights.

17 B. First Amendment Retaliation

18 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

19 basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

20 because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's

21 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

22 correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

23 Filing an inmate grievance is a protected action under the First Amendment. Bruce v. Ylst, 351

24 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003). A prison transfer may also constitute an adverse action. See

25 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an arbitrary confiscation and

26 destruction of property, initiation of a prison transfer, and assault as retaliation for filing inmate

27 grievances); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a retaliatory prison

28 transfer and double-cell status can constitute a cause of action for retaliation under the First

1 Amendment).

2 C. First Amendment Access to the Courts

3 Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts and prison officials may not

4 actively interfere with his right to litigate. Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir.

5 2011). Prisoners also enjoy some degree of First Amendment rights in their legal

6 correspondence. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977). However, to state a viable

7 claim for relief, plaintiff must allege he suffered an actual injury, which is prejudice with respect

8 to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a

9 non-frivolous claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996).

10 D. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

11 Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a

12 violation of the prisoner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

13 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when the individual is

14 deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.; see Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

15 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v.

16 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000).

17 In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts. Jett, 439

18 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other

19 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). First, the

20 plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s

21 condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of

22 pain.’” Id., citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. “Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he

23 existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of

24 comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

25 individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez, 203 F. 3d

26 at 1131-1132, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60.

27 Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately

28 indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. This second prong is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act

1 or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the

2 indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be aware of facts from

3 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person

4 “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This “subjective

5 approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 839. A

6 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.

7 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. A

8 difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does

9 a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical

10 treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058

11 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, mere delay of

12 medical treatment, “without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical

13 indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985).

14 Where a prisoner alleges that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the

15 prisoner must show that the delay caused “significant harm and that Defendants should have

16 known this to be the case.” Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745-46; see McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

17 E. Failure to Protect from Harm

18 Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from

19 violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal

20 quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). However, “not . . . every injury suffered by one

21 prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials

22 responsible for the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. A prison official may be held liable for an assault

23 suffered by one inmate at the hands of another only where the assaulted inmate can show that the

24 injury is sufficiently serious, and that the prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of

25 harm. Id. at 834, 837. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with

26 deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to

27 his future health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, the

28 “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial

1 risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id.

2 F. Conspiracy

3 To state a claim for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must plead specific facts

4 showing an agreement or meeting of minds between the defendants to violate his constitutional

5 rights. Woodrum v. Woodward Cnty., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must also

6 show how an actual deprivation of his constitutional rights resulted from the alleged conspiracy.

7 Id. “‘To be liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan,

8 but each participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy.’” Franklin v.

9 Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United Steel Workers of Am. V. Phelps Dodge

10 Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1541 (9th Cir. 1989) ).

11 The federal system is one of notice pleading, however, and the court may not apply a

12 heightened pleading standard to plaintiff's allegations of conspiracy. Empress LLC v. City and

13 County of San Francisco, 419 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2005); Galbraith v. County of Santa

14 Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be

15 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level....” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

16 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]”

17 which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

18 cause of action....” Id.

19 G. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection

20 The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated

21 alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Hartmann v.

22 California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705

23 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). It applies

24 both inside and outside of prison walls. Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 333 (1968). To state a

25 claim, plaintiff must show that defendant intentionally discriminated against him based on his

26 membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030;

27 Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d

28 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001). An individual's race is a protected class for purposes of the Equal

1 Protection Clause. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) (emphasizing that the due

2 process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment “are universal in their

3 application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of

4 race, of color, or of nationality....”); see also Johnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2005)

5 (concluding that strict scrutiny standard of review applies to an equal protection challenge to a

6 prison regulation based on race).

7 H. Joinder of Multiple Claims and Parties

8 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant in a civil action.

9 Fed. Rule Civ. P. 18. In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where

10 “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to

11 or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and

12 “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

13 20(a)(2). However, unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate

14 lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only

15 to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to

16 ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees—for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3

17 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the

18 required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id.

19 V. Analysis

20 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is

21 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief.

22 Plaintiff’s over-arching conspiracy allegation is not sufficient to link the named defendants to the

23 asserted constitutional violations. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a

24 short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules

25 adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the

26 claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.

27 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants

28 engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the

1 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will,

2 however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

3 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

4 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

5 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in

6 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C.

7 § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the

8 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

9 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

10 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

11 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

12 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

13 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

14 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

15 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

16 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

17 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

18 VI. Motion for Permanent Injunction

19 In a separately filed motion, plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring defendants

20 Allison and Covello to provide him with adequate medical care, single cell status, and to enjoin

21 them from destroying his mail. This injunction is requested based on the allegations in the

22 complaint along with a declaration from plaintiff that is attached to the motion. See ECF No. 7 at

23 3-9.

24 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate

25 ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

26 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction

27 is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

28 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (internal quotations omitted).

1 The Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale test for a preliminary injunction has been incorporated into the

2 Supreme Court’s four-part Winter’s standard. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

3 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the sliding scale approach allowed a stronger showing

4 of one element to offset a weaker showing of another element). “In other words, ‘serious

5 questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can

6 support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also

7 met.” Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131-32 (citations omitted). Additionally, in cases brought by

8 prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly

9 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary

10 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

11 A motion for preliminary injunction must be supported by “[e]vidence that goes beyond

12 the unverified allegations of the pleadings.” Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, No. C-11-

13 00896-SI, 2011 WL 5882878, *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal

14 Practice & Procedure § 2949 (2011)). The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of

15 establishing the merits of his or her claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.

16 7, 20 (2008).

17 Here, in light of plaintiff's failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted,

18 there is no actual case or controversy before the court. As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction to

19 issue an order enjoining defendants. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009);

20 Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

21 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits because the complaint is

22 being dismissed for failing to state a claim. Furthermore, although plaintiff has made allegations

23 that he is suffering due to inadequate medical care, he has not provided any evidence that

24 supports these claims aside from his own conclusory statements. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla.

25 Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasizing that “[t]hose seeking

26 injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.”).

27 At this stage in the proceedings, injunctive relief is also premature since no defendant has been

28 served. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

1 1985) (stating that “[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over

2 the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

3 rights of persons not before the court.”). Plaintiff is advised that even if he chooses to file another

4 motion for a preliminary injunction, the court is unlikely to take any action until the defendants

5 from whom he seeks relief have been served and have had an opportunity to respond to the

6 motion. For all these reasons, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction

7 without prejudice.

8 VII. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

9 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not

10 intended as legal advice.

11 The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not

12 state any claim against defendants. Your complaint is being dismissed, but you are being given

13 the chance to fix the problems identified in this screening order. Although you are not required to

14 do so, you may file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order. If you

15 choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular attention to the legal standards identified in

16 this order which may apply to your claims.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

19 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees

20 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California

21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

22 3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, included as part of his complaint, is

23 denied without prejudice.

24 4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

25 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

26 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

27 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket

28 number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an

1 | amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

2 || be dismissed.

3 6. Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice

4 | for the reasons explained herein.

5 | Dated: January 19, 2022 Card Kt | La Ly / g—

6 CAROLYN K DELANEY?

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9

10

1]

12

13 12/cald1896.14+tro.docx

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12