Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03158/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. , 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-3158-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a former county inmate, proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Screening 

 I. Legal Standards 

 Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

Case 2:18-cv-03158-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/06/20 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 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action's elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations 

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in 

the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 

8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-563 (2007). 

 II. Analysis 

 As a threshold matter, plaintiff’s complaint is illegible. Rather than appending additional 

pages in order to clearly articulate his claims, he has attempted to condense his handwriting to fit 

the small space offered by the complaint form. The result is an unbroken wall of text with no 

discernable gaps between words or sentences. The court simply cannot make out the claims 

plaintiff seeks to raise and it declines to guess as to his intent. Thus, it will dismiss the complaint 

with leave to amend. 

 Additionally, from what can be discerned from the document plaintiff has sued two 

entities – the Sacramento County Jail and the Sacramento County Jail Medical Staff – who are 

not proper defendants in a section 1983 action. See e.g., Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 F. 

Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“Naming a municipal department as a defendant is not an 

Case 2:18-cv-03158-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/06/20 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 

appropriate means of pleading a § 1983 action against a municipality.”). He should bear this in 

mind in drafting his amended complaint – if he elects to file one. 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 

persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 

rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 

include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that 

“they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants. Id. 

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-03158-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/06/20 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 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 

from the date of service of this order; and 

 3. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in 

the dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 

DATED: February 6, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-03158-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 4