(PC)Soria v. Leninger, No. 2:2020cv01741 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/6/2021 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 11 First Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Soria v. Leninger Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL SORIA, 12 No. 2:20-cv-1741 AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. LENINGER, 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 17 18 19 20 has filed a first amended complaint. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 22 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 23 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 25 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 26 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 27 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 3 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 4 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 5 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 7 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 8 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 9 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 10 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 11 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 12 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 13 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 14 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 15 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 16 cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 17 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 18 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 19 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 21 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 22 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 23 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 24 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 25 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 26 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 II. 2 First Amended Complaint The first amended complaint alleges that defendant Leninger violated plaintiff’s rights 3 under the Eighth Amendment, Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. ECF No. 11 at 3, 4 6. Specifically, he alleges that on August 12, 2020, Leninger came to his cell and aggressively 5 told him to “get the fuck on.” ECF No. 11 at 3. When plaintiff asked if Leninger was threatening 6 him, defendant responded “I have this green suit and you cannot do nuthing [sic] about it.” Id. 7 Leninger then proceeded to kick plaintiff’s wheelchair walker and broke the basket loose. Id. 8 Two days prior, defendant also allegedly refused to help plaintiff obtain assistance in filling out a 9 medical request form, which he requires due to a learning disability. Id. 10 III. 11 Failure to State a Claim Despite the court advising plaintiff of the information he would need to provide in order to 12 state claims for relief, the allegations of first amended complaint are identical to those contained 13 in the original complaint and provide no additional information. Compare ECF No. 1 at 3 with 14 ECF No. 11 at 3. The first amended complaint therefore fails to state a claim for the same 15 reasons the original failed to state a claim. Those reasons are set forth in the October 20, 2020 16 screening order, ECF No. 8, which is incorporated here by reference. 17 18 IV. No Further Leave to Amend Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 19 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 20 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se 21 litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, 22 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 23 amendment.” (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after 24 careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may 25 dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1005-06. 26 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted. Because the first amended complaint is essentially identical to the 28 original complaint and does not add any additional facts, the undersigned infers that there are no 3 1 additional facts to add and concludes that further leave to amend would be futile. The complaint 2 should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. 3 4 5 6 V. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the entire filing fee immediately. It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 7 because the facts you have alleged do not state a claim for relief and your first amended 8 complaint does not provide any new information. 9 10 11 12 13 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 16 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 17 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 18 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 19 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 DATED: April 6, 2021 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
