Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01980-1/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

ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT 

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING 

AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND

ECF No. 1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF Nos. 2 & 8

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sierra Conservation Center, alleges that defendants Anderson, 

Rosen, Mara, Patton, Klein, and Rossi—all officers with the Roseville police department—and

Rosen, a physician at the Sutter Roseville Medical Center, violated his rights in varied and 

ambiguous ways. The complaint, as articulated, does not meet federal pleading standards. I will 

give plaintiff leave to amend and will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ECF No. 2. I will deny his motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 8. 

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/30/23 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

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)).

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/30/23 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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges several violations of his rights, and I cannot tell how, if at all, they are 

connected. Additionally, each violation of his right is ambiguously alleged and the facts at issue 

are hazy.

First, plaintiff alleges that the Roseville police department and Sutter Medical Center 

“documented” him in two different locations at the same time. ECF No. 1 at 3. In connection 

with this claim, he alleges that defendants Patton, Klein, and Rossi illegally confiscated his 

driver’s license and that defendant Rosen “staged” a medical appointment that never occurred. 

Id. On the complaint form, plaintiff alleges that the injury in question was defendant Mara 

punching him in the face while he slept, and officer Patton putting a gun to his chest and 

threatening him. Id. Plaintiff offers no context for any of these claims. 

Second, he claims that defendants Mara, Patton, Klein, and Rossi responded to a loud 

music complaint in Roseville and trespassed onto private property (presumably plaintiff’s). Id. at 

6. Plaintiff alleges that the officers conducted an illegal search and seizure on the property, but he 

does not offer any specifics. Id. He also alleges that defendant Mara assaulted him during the 

search, but he does not state whether this is a reference to the assault mentioned in the first claim 

or a different incident. Id. 

Third and finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Rosen, a physician, improperly billed his 

insurance and is under investigation for malpractice. Id. at 7. He does not offer any specifics on 

the malpractice or whether he was the victim. Plaintiff goes on to allege that Sutter Roseville 

Medical Center and the Roseville police department are conspiring to commit crimes together, the 

specifics of which are unalleged. Id. 

The complaint cannot proceed in its current form because no defendant could reasonably 

be expected to understand and contextualize the piecemeal allegations it sets forth. Plaintiff may 

amend and offer a better explanation of his claims. He is advised that the amended complaint 

will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 

to the appropriate case number.

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/30/23 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

I will deny plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff does not 

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent him. See 

Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). I may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request 

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 

exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court 

must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits and, at this 

point, I cannot say that he is incapable of articulating his claims on his own. For these reasons, 

plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 8, is denied without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

complaint. If he does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 8, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 11/30/23 Page 4 of 4