Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02778/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02778-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-2778-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND HIS 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 6

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner housed at California State Prison, Sacramento, brings this action 

against seventeen named defendants and an unspecified number of defendants to be named later. 

ECF No. 1 at 3-7. He claims that he was sexually assaulted by correctional officers and that the 

defendants violated his rights by failing to arrest, or to assist with a citizen’s arrest of, the 

offenders. Id. at 7, 12. The complaint as articulated does not give the named defendants adequate 

notice of the specific claims against them and, therefore, does not comply with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. I will give plaintiff leave to amend. Additionally, although plaintiff is a

three-striker within the meaning of § 1915(g), I will grant his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, because he alleges that he is in imminent danger. Id. at 22. 

Case 2:23-cv-02778-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. Legal Standards

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually assaulted by unidentified correctional officers. ECF 

No. 1 at 7, 12. He claims that he sought to subject the offending to a citizen’s arrest and that the 

various named defendants refused to help him. Id. The complaint additionally alleges that 

plaintiff tried contacting the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and the Sacramento

Case 2:23-cv-02778-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

and Folsom Police Departments to seek assistance in prosecuting the sexual assault, but that each

of these entities refused to help him. Id. at 7-9. The complaint fails to put the various defendants 

on notice, however, of how they specifically violated his rights. There are seventeen named 

defendants, and, for many of them, I cannot understand what involvement, if any, they had in the 

events giving rise to this case. For instance, plaintiff has sued Rob Bonta, the California Attorney 

General, but nothing in the complaint indicates that Attorney General Bonta would have personal 

knowledge or involvement in violating plaintiff’s rights. The complaint is also flawed insofar as 

its narrative of the facts at issue heavily relies on attached prison grievance forms. Id. at 11-19. 

These photocopied grievances are difficult to parse and do a poor job of assigning responsibility 

for the alleged violations of plaintiff’s rights. A complaint, especially one suing numerous 

defendants, must be well-organized so that each defendant can understand the allegations against 

him or her. 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these deficiencies. He is advised 

that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 

693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will 

need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 

claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 

should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

Case 2:23-cv-02778-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02778-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 4 of 4