1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWONE STOKES, No. 2:24-cv-02715-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JENKS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in an action 18 brought under

. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff seeks leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 20 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by

(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in

1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 II. Screening Order 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 8 Twombly,

(2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). 9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

, 679 (2009). 12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 14 action.” Twombly,

. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678. 17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 18 Twombly,

. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 22 Pardus,

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974). 24 Plaintiff alleges two claims. He alleges in his first claim that defendant correctional 25 officer Jenks used excessive force against him on September 10, 2024. To state a claim of 26 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts that show that 27 a correctional officer used force against him maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, rather 28 than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Hudson v. McMillian,

, 6-7 1 (1992). To determine whether the evidence establishes such a scenario, the factfinder may 2 consider: (1) the need for force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force 3 used; (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; (4) the extent of injury suffered by the 4 plaintiff; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response.

. 5 Construed liberally, and for the purposes of § 1915A, plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable 6 excessive force claim against Jenks. 7 In his second claim, plaintiff alleges that CDCR and defendant correctional officer Shraim 8 failed to provide him with peanut-free meals despite his peanut allergy. Plaintiff’s second claim 9 must be dismissed because it is impermissibly joined to the first claim. Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are against a single 11 defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants 12 to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of 13 transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise 14 in the action.” Unrelated claims against different defendants must therefore be pursued in 15 separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended 16 “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but 17 also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees— for the Prison Litigation Reform Act 18 limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment 19 of the required fees.

(g).”

20 III. Recommendation and Order 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 23 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is 24 assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to 26 the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 27 concurrently herewith. 28 //// 1 3. Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable excessive force claim against defendant Jenks. 2 The court will direct service of the complaint on defendant Jenks upon resolution of the 3 below recommendation. 4 4. The Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this action. 5 || Itis RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claim against CDCR and defendant Shraim concerning the 6 || meals he was provided at CSP-Sac be dismissed as improperly joined, without prejudice to it 7 || being raised in a separate lawsuit. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 13 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 14 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 16 | v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 || Dated: November 10, 2025 S<Poattid Zt FI 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28