United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a former state prisoner who was paroled after commencing
this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis
with his proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
See ECF No.22; see also ECF No. 34.
has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for
all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local
Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 4. For the reasons set
forth below, this court dismisses the SAC with leave to file
a Third Amended Complaint.
OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Legal Standards for Screening a Prisoner Civil Rights
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as
frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is
whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pled, has
an arguable legal and factual basis.
district court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to
determine if it states a potentially cognizable claim. The
court must explain to the plaintiff any deficiencies in his
complaint and accord plaintiff an opportunity to cure them.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2000). While detailed factual allegations are not required,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations.” Id.
at 679. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“requires only a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (citation and internal quotation and punctuation
se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the
complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.
Allegations of Plaintiff's SAC
SAC, plaintiff contends that in December 2012, during his
physical examination when initially incarcerated, plaintiff
was administered an injection, reportedly against hepatitis,
that allegedly caused significant changes to his entire body
resulting in overt feminization. See ECF No. 22.
These changes have been distressing to plaintiff, both
privately and due to the responses of inmates and prison
staff. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to relentless
verbal harassment and name calling, the tampering of his
food, and intentional obstruction in his attempts to exhaust
administrative remedies. In the SAC, which names more than
thirty defendants, plaintiff seeks damages, “medical
fees payed for the massive surgery I need, ” fees and
costs, and a “public apology for the defamation.”
Id. at 3.
overarching problems beset the SAC. First, the complaint
contains myriad unrelated factual allegations and putative
claims against numerous defendants. Although a plaintiff may
join multiple claims against a single defendant, he may not
pursue unrelated claims against different ...