The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SKYLER R. BROWN, Case No. 2:23-cv-01827-JDP (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER
13 v.
14 S. SERGENT,
15 Defendant
16
17
18
19
20
21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this case against defendant Sergent for
22 violation of her1 Eighth Amendment rights. The complaint is sufficient to state an Eighth
23 Amendment claim against Sergent. Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination, however, are non-
24 cognizable as articulated. Plaintiff may either proceed only with her Eighth Amendment
25 excessive force claim or delay serving the defendant and file an amended complaint.
26 Additionally, I will grant her application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
27
28 1 Plaintiff identifies as a transgender woman. ECF No. 1 at 5.
1 Screening Order
2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements
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
26
27
28
1 II. Analysis
2 Plaintiff alleges that, on an unspecified date, defendant Sergent threw her to the ground
3 | and placed a knee on her neck. ECF No. | at 3. She alleges that she was offering no resistance at
4 | the time Sergent used force against her. These allegations, though threadbare, are sufficient to
5 | state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.
6 Plaintiff also makes vague claims that Sergent has discriminated against transgender
7 | inmates in the past. Id. at 4-5. She does not allege any specific instances of discrimination, and
8 | instead alludes to lawsuits filed against Sergent by other transgender inmates. Jd. at 6. If plaintiff
9 | intends to pursue a claim based on these allegations, she must allege particulars and explain her
10 | theory of liability.
11 Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed only with her Eighth Amendment excessive force
12 | claim against Sergent, or she may file an amended complaint. She is advised that the amended
13 | complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896,
14 | 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended
15 | Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.
16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
17 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
18 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall either indicate her intent
19 || to proceed only with her excessive force claim against Sergent or she shall file her amended
20 | complaint.
21 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order.
22
73 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 ( q Sty —
Dated: _ November 1, 2023 Q_-——_
25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON
26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28