1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SASSUS SANDERS, No. 2:22-cv-01232-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

15 DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first 19 amended complaint filed on September 23, 2022, is before the court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e).1 The allegations of the amended complaint do not state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff 21 will have an opportunity to file a further amended complaint. In any further amended complaint, 22 plaintiff shall describe in specific terms how each named defendant is involved in the alleged 23 violations. 24 I. SCREENING AND PLEADING STANDARDS 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 26 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 28 636(b)(1). 1 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 3 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 5 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 6 baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 7 See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 8 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 9 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines 10 v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory 11 allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council 12 v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 14 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 17 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 18 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se 19 litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend 20 unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 21 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez v. 22 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 23 II. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 Plaintiff seeks relief for violations of his civil rights that allegedly took place at the 25 Sacramento County Main Jail. (See generally, ECF No. 4.) Defendants are Lt. B, Lt. Ayers, and 26 Williamson. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges as follows: 27 The night shift and day denied sending my mail to the receiving end or gave my mail to medical and pretty much placed me in a part of 28 1 the facility where it would be easy to alienate me. After another inmate told them what [they] were doing was wrong[ ]. 2 3 (ECF No. 4 at 5.) And further, 4 I’ve been homeless for four year[s] and lived in my car. So just about most of my belonging[s] were in my car. I needed to be released on 5 the date me and my attorney agreed upon to retrieve and leave 6 California with my Section 8 voucher because I do not feel safe in Sacramento or California. 7 8 (Id. at 6.) 9 Attached to the complaint are various jail grievances and message requests that plaintiff 10 submitted. (ECF No. 4 at 9-21.) In another attachment to the complaint, plaintiff describes being 11 taken into custody by the sheriff’s department with “intense force.” (ECF No. 4 at 7.) He further 12 states he was “denied medical attention” and left in a cell for three days with no water and a toilet 13 that did not flush. (Id. at 7-8.) 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. No Factual Allegations Specific to the Defendants 16 Like the original complaint, the first amended complaint does not describe the conduct of 17 the individual defendants who allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights. Specifically, Lt. B, Lt. Ayers, 18 and Williamson are the individuals listed as the defendants in the amended complaint, but those 19 individuals are not further mentioned in the amended complaint’s factual allegations.2 Thus, the 20 court is unable to discern what facts underlie the causes of action plaintiff is attempting to bring, 21 and against whom. 22 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se litigant’s 23 complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. 24 Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring

25 2 The court also does not find any clear indication of how these defendants allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights in the attachments to the first amended complaint. While the court has reviewed 26 the attachments to the first amended complaint, plaintiff is cautioned the court will not comb 27 through attached exhibits in any further amended complaint seeking to determine whether a claim could possibly be stated where the complaint itself does not state a claim. In other words, 28 supporting facts for a plaintiff’s claims shall be set forth in the further amended complaint itself. 1 a short and plain statement of the claim). The complaint must be dismissed because it does not 2 contain sufficient factual content to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that any 3 named defendant has violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 4 B. Legal Standards under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 5 To state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 6 essential elements: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 8 law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 Under § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 10 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); 11 Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010). Supervisory personnel may 12 only be held liable if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and 13 failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) accord Starr v. 14 Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012). 15 Here, it is not clear whether plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or a convicted jail inmate 16 when the various events underlying the complaint occurred. While a convicted inmate’s claims 17 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arise from the Eighth Amendment prohibition 18 against cruel and unusual punishment, a pretrial detainee’s claims for unconstitutional conditions 19 of confinement arise from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 20 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Both standards generally require proof that the defendant acted with 21 deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) 22 (clarifying how Fourteenth Amendment medical care claims differ from Eighth Amendment 23 claims in which a subjective deliberate indifference standard applies). In any event, the Eighth 24 Amendment provides a minimum standard of care for detainees. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 25 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (2001) (overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 26 833 F.3d 1060 (2016)). 27 //// 28 //// 1 B. Right to Send and Receive Mail 2 Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 3 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). At the same time, correctional institutions and jails 4 have a legitimate governmental interest in imposing certain restraints on inmate or detainee 5 correspondence to maintain order and security. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). For 7 example, prison officials may examine an inmate’s mail and inspect non-legal mail for 8 contraband outside the inmate’s presence without infringing his rights. United States v. Wilson, 9 447 F.2d 1, 8 n.4 (9th Cir. 1971); Witherow, 52 F.3d at 265-66. 10 Here, plaintiff has not identified any individual defendant as responsible for plaintiff’s 11 mail issues. Under the amended complaint’s allegations, it is not clear whether or how any 12 individual defendant violated plaintiff’s right to send and receive mail. Plaintiff’s general 13 allegations referencing problems with outgoing mail are insufficient to state a claim. See 14 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557 (in order to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain more than 15 “naked assertions” or “labels and conclusions”). Plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend this 16 claim. In any amended complaint, in order to state a claim, plaintiff must provide more factual 17 details about who did what to violate his right to send and receive mail. 18 E. Claim for Denial of Medical Care 19 Actionable “deliberate indifference” to a serious medical need exists “if [the prison 20 official] knows that [the] inmate [ ] face[s] a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that 21 risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 947 22 (1994). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves two elements: (1) the seriousness of 23 the medical needs; and (2) the nature of the defendant’s responses to the needs. McGuckin v. 24 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). 25 A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 26 further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle v. 27 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).) Deliberate indifference may occur when prison officials deny, 28 delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which 1 prison physicians provide medical care.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 2 1988). In order for deliberate indifference to be established, there must first be a purposeful act or 3 failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. 4 Here, plaintiff’s allegations that he was denied medical care are too general and too vague 5 to state a claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. Plaintiff does not identify any individual 6 defendants allegedly responsible for these deprivations. Plaintiff also does not explain what the 7 defendants did, or failed to do to, to cause the violations. Plaintiff also does not state what harm 8 he suffered as a result of the deprivations. Plaintiff will have another opportunity to allege 9 additional facts in a further amended complaint. 10 F. Other Conditions of Confinement 11 Prison officials may be liable for “inhumane conditions of confinement that imposed an 12 excessive risk to [the inmate’s] health or safety.” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th 13 Cir. 2005.) In order to be liable, the prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk 14 to inmate health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. “The circumstances, nature, and duration 15 of a deprivation of [ ] necessities must be considered in determining whether a constitutional 16 violation has occurred.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 Plaintiff states he was without water and unable to flush the toilet for three days. 18 However, plaintiff does not identify any individual defendants allegedly responsible for these 19 deprivations or explain what those defendants did or failed to do to cause the violations. With no 20 further details pleaded about this deprivation, the amended complaint fails to state a claim. 21 Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that any individual defendant was aware of a serious 22 risk of harm to his health or safety and failed to act. Plaintiff may attempt to state a claim by 23 pleading more facts in an amended complaint. 24 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Plaintiff is granted another opportunity to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Lucas v. 26 Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment 27 can cure the defect, ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an 28 opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). Plaintiff is not obligated to amend. If 1 | plaintiff files a further amended complaint, it should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and 2 || reference the appropriate case number. A further amended complaint must be complete in itself 3 || without reference to any prior pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); Local 4 | Rule 220. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is dismissed for failure to state a 7 | claim; and 8 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 9 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 10 || Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 11 | and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an 12 || amended complaint or otherwise respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this 13 || action be dismissed. 14 | Dated: October 24, 2022 / aa / a Ly a 1s CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 |g sanders.22cv1232.sernfac 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28