United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1]
Paul Nivard Beaton is appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed January
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, ” that “fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[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 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are
entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to
have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must
be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual
detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The
“sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that
are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in his complaint as
true only for the purpose of the sua sponte
screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
complaint is handwritten and a majority of the statement of
his claims are illegible. However, it appears the crux of
Plaintiff's claim is that Sergeant D. Miller has
retaliated against Plaintiff by approving a Rules Violation
Report (RVR) because Plaintiff attempted to file inmate
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20
Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the general
formatting of his complaint. Plaintiff's complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(d)(1). A party must state its claims or defenses in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate
transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate
count.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).
function of the complaint is not to list every single fact
relating to Plaintiff's claims. If Plaintiff wishes to
amend his complaint, he must set forth his claims in a
simple, concise, and direct manner in order to meet the
requirements of Rule 8.
lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add
multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same
defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a
plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit where the
right to relief arises out of the same “transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions” and “any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.” However, unrelated claims that involve
different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits.
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007). This rule is not only intended to avoid confusion that
arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ...