1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDERSON PURNELL THURSTON, Case No. 2:25-cv-1925-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BABB, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, brings this action against two Yuba 19 County Sherriff’s Deputies, Babb and Dutt.1 His allegations that the defendants violated his 20 Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him adequate conditions of confinement are sufficient 21 to proceed past screening. By contrast, his equal protection claim is non-cognizable as currently 22 articulated. Plaintiff may proceed only with his cognizable claims, or he may delay serving any 23 defendant and file another amended complaint. 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 26 in forma pauperis. See

(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 27 1 Plaintiff has filed a request to update the spelling of Duff’s name to Dutt. ECF No. 10. 28 That request is granted, and I will ask that the Clerk of Court update Dutt’s name on the docket. 1 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 2 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.

4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 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 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 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 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 21 Analysis 22 Plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2025, during transport from Sacramento County Jail to 23 the Yuba County Jail, defendants left him in a van with two other inmates. ECF No. 8 at 4. Due 24 to a lack of ventilation in the van, plaintiff, an asthmatic, allegedly began to experience an asthma 25 attack.

Plaintiff claims that he shouted for defendants and asked for his rescue inhaler, which 26 defendant Babb had allegedly denied him at the outset of the transport.

Defendants did not 27 initially respond, however, and plaintiff claims that he lost consciousness.

An unnamed 28 female staff member eventually noticed the plight of the inmates in the van and informed 1 defendants of it. Id. at 4-5. So notified, defendants allegedly moved lethargically and, despite the 2 serious conditions in the van, unhurriedly turned on the air conditioning, while refusing to 3 otherwise open the vehicle to outside air. Id. at 5. 4 Given that plaintiff appears to have been a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident, 5 these allegations are sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for inadequate conditions 6 of confinement. “Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do 7 so under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833

, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Bell v. Wolfish,

(1979)). 10 Plaintiff also references a possible equal protection claim, but this claim is insufficiently 11 articulated to proceed. ECF No. 8 at 6. “To state a claim under

for a violation 12 of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the 13 defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon 14 membership in a protected class.” Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998). 15 Here, plaintiff alleges only that defendant defendants used “evil, vulgar, and racially disrespectful 16 sarcastic remarks,” ECF No. 8 at 6, but he does not allege what racial language was used or what 17 protected class he is a part of. Additionally, the allegations indicate that defendants left all their 18 charges in the poorly ventilated van, not just plaintiff, and it is unclear if all those inmates are part 19 of the contemplated protected class. 20 Plaintiff may proceed only with his conditions of confinement claims, or delay serving 21 any defendant and file an amended complaint. 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s request to update the spelling of defendant Duff’s name to “Dutt,” ECF No. 24 9, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to make this correction to the docket. 25 2. Plaintiff may proceed with the claims deemed cognizable in this order. If he chooses 26 to do so, he should indicate as much in writing within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he elects 27 this option, I will order submission of service documents. Alternatively, he may delay serving 28 any defendant and file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s entry. 1 3. The Clerk of Court shall plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 2 4. The failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for 3 | failure to prosecute. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 / © | Dated: _ December 1, 2025 _ gene Ws 7 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28