(PC) Sierra v. Covello et al, No. 2:2022cv00488 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/20/2022 VACATING 11 Findings and Recommendations, and GRANTING Plaintiff 60 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action by a prisoner. (Huang, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Sierra v. Covello et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO SIERRA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-0488 KJN P v. ORDER PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 17 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 24, 2022, following the court’s July 12, 2022 detailed 19 screening order, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s 20 failure to submit an amended complaint. On September 15, 2022, plaintiff filed objections. 21 In his objections, plaintiff expresses his disbelief that the court could not find one 22 cognizable civil rights claim in his original complaint, and “gets a headache just thinking about 23 even ‘trying’ to rebuild every single allegation individually 20 something times.” (ECF No. 13 at 24 2.) 25 However, the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff filed a “shotgun” or “kitchen 26 sink” pleading against 22 individuals at Mule Creek State Prison and set forth 21 unrelated and 27 wide-ranging factual allegations. (ECF No. 7.) The undersigned explained that it is not the 28 court’s burden to attempt to identify plaintiff’s genuine claims and which claim might have legal 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 support. Indeed, plaintiff included so many different and unrelated factual allegations, there was 2 little factual support provided to enable the court to determine whether plaintiff could state a 3 viable civil rights claim. Certainly, not all 21 of plaintiff’s factual allegations stated potentially 4 cognizable civil rights claims. For example, as the court explained, plaintiff cannot state viable 5 civil rights violations based on the deprivation of property, including plaintiff’s personal property 6 or money in his trust account, or based on verbal harassment. So plaintiff is not expected to file 7 20 different actions as a result of the court’s screening order. Rather, plaintiff is encouraged to 8 carefully review the standards set forth in the initial screening order and determine whether he 9 can allege facts meeting each element of the potential claim. (ECF No. 7 at 9-10.) For example, 10 plaintiff can only state a cognizable access to the courts claim if he can identify an actual injury, 11 such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a claim. (ECF No. 7 at 10.) Importantly, 12 plaintiff should name as a defendant only those individuals involved in the alleged constitutional 13 violation. Cognizable civil rights claims are not based on negligence, but must be sufficiently 14 grave or serious allegations. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (to rise to the level 15 of an Eighth Amendment violation, the deprivation alleged must be objectively sufficiently 16 harmful). As the United States Supreme Court has explained for claims arising in the Eighth 17 Amendment context: 18 Not every governmental action affecting the interests or well-being of a prisoner is subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny, however. After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. To be cruel and unusual punishment, conduct that does not purport to be punishment at all must involve more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety. 19 20 21 22 See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (internal quotation marks, citation, and 23 alteration omitted). 24 In an abundance of caution, the findings and recommendations are vacated, and plaintiff is 25 granted sixty days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the court’s July 12, 26 2022 order. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The August 24, 2022 findings and recommendations are vacated; 2 1 2. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 2 complaint that complies with the July 12, 2022 screening order, the requirements of the Civil 3 Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended 4 complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended 5 Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended 6 complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 7 dismissed. 8 9 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action by a prisoner. Dated: September 20, 2022 11 12 13 14 /sier0488.vac.eot 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
