Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00099-5/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

FORREST GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL CASSIE,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00099-JDP (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR SCREENING

ECF No. 30

SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:

(1) STAND BY HIS SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT SUBJECT 

TO A RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL;

(2) FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 28

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

On August 3, 2022, I directed service for defendant Cassie based on the allegations in 

plaintiff’s first amended complaint. ECF No. 15. On November 21, 2022, after Cassie had been 

served, plaintiff motioned for permission to file a second amended complaint, ECF No. 26, which 

I granted, ECF No. 27. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on December 14, 2022, ECF 

No. 28. I find that the second amended complaint does not state a viable claim against any 

Case 2:22-cv-00099-JDP Document 33 Filed 02/22/23 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

defendant. I will give plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his complaint before recommending 

that this action be dismissed.

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. Id. 

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

It appears that, in filing his second amended complaint, plaintiff overlooked my warning 

Case 2:22-cv-00099-JDP Document 33 Filed 02/22/23 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

that the second amended complaint would supersede its predecessor, ECF No. 27 at 1-2. The 

second amended complaint does add two new defendants but does not include any of plaintiff’s 

original claims against defendant Cassie. It is possible that this was plaintiff’s intent, but that 

seems at odds with his previous filing, which explicitly asked to “add” rather than substitute 

defendants. See ECF No. 26. Moreover, plaintiff’s claims against the newly added defendants 

are vague and conclusory. With respect to Warden Gena Jones, plaintiff alleges only that she 

failed to include a “measure of security” at the telemedicine appointment where he was allegedly 

sexually assaulted by Cassie. ECF No. 28 at 1. Plaintiff does not describe what security she 

failed to provide or what notice, if any, she had of the danger allegedly posed by Cassie. Plaintiff 

also sues Dr. S.K. Aref, the chief executive officer of the company that employed Cassie. Id. at 2. 

He vaguely alleges that it was this individual’s responsibility to ensure that his employees were 

trained and rule-abiding. Id. Again, however, he does not allege what Aref specifically failed to 

do, what notice, if any, he had about Cassie, or whether Aref had any personal involvement in 

hiring or training Cassie. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Taylor v. 

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

I will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend. He is advised that the amended complaint 

will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 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 “Third

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request for screening, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED.

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint that contains all of his claims. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be 

dismissed. 

Case 2:22-cv-00099-JDP Document 33 Filed 02/22/23 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

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00099-JDP Document 33 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 4