(PC) Jones v. Gralla

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN JONES JR. Case No. 2:22-cv-00449-KJM-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 v. PAUPERIS WENDY GRALLA, et al., SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 14 Defendants. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 15 RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE DISMISSED; OR (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ECF Nos. 1 & 2 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants have falsely imprisoned him by failing to release him on the proper date. This claim is not cognizable, but I will give him leave to amend his complaint. Additionally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

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 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 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, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 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 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 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 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 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 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated his rights by failing to acknowledge his | proper release date. ECF No. | at 6. He claims, therefore, that they have falsely imprisoned him.

4 | Id. at 5. This claim should be brought, if at all, by way of a habeas petition. “Challenges to the | validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas | corpus....” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 754 (2004) (citation omitted). This is true | even where, as here, plaintiff seeks monetary damages related to the failure to release him. Heck | v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994).

9 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these shortcomings. If he decides | todo so, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa | County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended | complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D.

13 | Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves | any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need | to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended | complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

19 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended | complaint or state his intent to stand by the current complaint, subjecting to a recommendation of | dismissal for failure to state a claim.

22 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

23 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

95 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 | q Sty — Dated: _ July 13, 2022 27 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE