(PC) Payton v. Sacramento County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MTULA TASHAMBY PAYTON, Case No. 2:25-cv-0234-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, brings this § 1983 action against Sacramento County, alleging that varying correctional officers at the Sacramento County Main Jail failed to protect him from gang violence in violation of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. The allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted herein. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8.

23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. Id. 3 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. 7 662, 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).

13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 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).

17 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)).

20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff brings his complaint against a sole named defendant—Sacramento County. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. In his complaint, he alleges that he is a known member of the Crips gang, and that officers knowingly transferred him to an area of the jail where rival gang members were held. Id. at 4-5. He alleges that after this transfer he was attacked by rival gang members during a family visit. Id. at 6-7. He asserts that deputies Reyes, Little, Malyuk, Adams, and a John Doe sergeant were deliberately indifferent to his safety, and that Reyes used excessive force against him after plaintiff was attacked by the other inmates. Id. at 9-11. He also alleges that Sergeant Galovich is responsible for encouraging the deputies to engage in violence against inmates. Id. at 12.

1 | Notably absent from plaintiff's complaint are any allegations against the only named defendant in | this suit. As it currently stands, the complaint fails to provide notice to defendant Sacramento | County of the claims against it and fails to meet Rule 8’s pleading requirements.

4 Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow | plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed.

6 | Plaintiff should take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If plaintiff | decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See | Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 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.

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

14 | If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED.

17 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

18 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

20 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

95 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 | q Sty — Dated: _ May 22, 2025 q——— 27 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE