1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-3149-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT ST. ANDRE, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner, brings this action against wardens Robert St. Andre and 22 Christian Pfeiffer, and officer Garcia, alleging a host of broad inadequacies throughout the 23 California prison system, as administered by the California Department of Corrections and 24 Rehabilitation. ECF No. 1. I recommend, for the reasons stated below, that this action be 25 dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis, ECF No. 2. 27

28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 As best the court can discern, the complaint alleges a scramble of issues that plaintiff 26 experienced while in CDCR custody. ECF No. 1. He explains that CDCR should keep disabled 27 inmates and non-gang inmates separate from other inmates. Plaintiff claims, without detail, that 28 he was “repeatedly misused and beaten.” He also claims that he was never paid for work he did 1 while at various prisons, and that he and other inmates were treated as slaves by various prisons. 2 From 2021-2022, while plaintiff was housed in the M yard of Kern Valley State Prison, defendant 3 officer Garcia harassed plaintiff by observing him shower. Also, during 2021-2024, plaintiff was 4 denied access to the library, copies, religious books, religious food, religious visits, and 5 experienced disability discrimination at various prisons. While in custody, plaintiff sought 6 treatment for COVID, thyroid problems, and hemorrhoids, but never received treatment. Plaintiff 7 claims that the educational programs at High Desert State Prison and Kern Valley State Prison 8 were insufficient. The complaint also contains a broad allegation that CDCR prisons have 9 adopted “grossly illegal and unconstitutional practices,” and that this action is intended to restore 10 public faith and trust. 11 Plaintiff may have prepared a broad and generalized indictment of the prison system, but 12 he has not articulated an actionable claim or related set of claims that can reasonably be addressed 13 in litigation. As noted above, plaintiff raises claims regarding medical care, prisoner safety, and 14 ADA accommodations. The claims lack specificity, and many appear to implicate the rights of 15 inmates who are not party to this suit. This is not a case in which a plaintiff has raised a set of 16 unrelated claims that can be subdivided. Plaintiff, it appears, has no intention of litigating 17 discrete instances of misconduct or unlawfulness; by his own admission, he intends this litigation 18 to restore public faith and trust. 19 Generally, pro se litigants who bring non-viable claims in their initial complaint are 20 offered at least one chance to amend. However, granting plaintiff leave to amend in this case 21 would be futile. Plaintiff has filed several complaints—each replying on similarly vague and 22 conclusory—that have been dismissed for either fail to state a claim or lack of subject matter 23 jurisdiction. See, e.g., See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:23-cv-0052-DAD-CKD (PS); Singh 24 v. Internal Revenue Services, No. 2:23-cv-0053-KJM-AC; Singh v. City of Placerville, No. 2:23- 25 cv-54-DAD-KJN (PS); Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:23-cv-0057-TLN-CKD (PS). Moreover, 26 plaintiff has previously filed a complaint against CDCR and Macomber containing substantially 27 similar allegations; this court dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See Singh v. CDCR, 2:24- 28 cv-2390-TLN-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024). Considering all this, the complaint should be 1 | dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) 2 | (‘Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a 3 | complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint 4 | lacks merit entirely.”). 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, 6 | ECF No. 2, is granted. 7 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without 8 || leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within fourteen days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 17 | v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ January 10, 2025 q——— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28