Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00907/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00907-2/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

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE 

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT 

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FAILS TO MEET FEDERAL PLEADING 

STANDARDS AND OFFERING LEAVE 

TO AMEND

ECF No. 8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF No. 6

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Solano County Jail, alleges that defendants violated her rights 

by failing to provide adequate medical care and by retaliating against her for filing grievances. I 

previously found some of her claims cognizable, ECF No. 7, but noted that the complaint 

contained unrelated claims. I informed plaintiff that she could proceed with one set of cognizable 

claims, or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. Id. She selected the latter 

option and filed a first amended complaint that is before me for screening. ECF No. 8. The first 

amended complaint does not contain a “short and plain statement” of her claims showing that she 

is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). I will give her leave to amend to remedy this 

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 11/08/23 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

deficiency. I will also deny her motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 6. 

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-00907-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 11/08/23 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’s nineteen-page complaint, which is not divided by claim, defendant, or 

paragraph, is not a “short and plain statement” as contemplated by Rule 8. See McHenry v. 

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Prolix, confusing complaints such as the ones 

plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.”). Though I can 

generally understand the allegations on a line-by-line basis, it is difficult to tell where distinct 

claims begin and end and whether certain allegations are merely offered for context or as the 

basis for a new claim. The complaint’s lack of organization puts the court, and any defendant 

who would be served, in the unenviable position of having to guess at the components of the 

claims being brought. Rather than serving the complaint and risking delay or wasting judicial 

resources due to misapprehensions about what claims are at issue, I find it more prudent to offer 

plaintiff leave to amend. She is advised that any amended complaint should be organized in a 

manner that permits easy understanding of what claims are being brought against each defendant. 

Plaintiff 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). The amended 

complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 

number.

Finally, I will deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 6. 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 her. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 11/08/23 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

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 she is likely to succeed on the merits and, at this 

point, I cannot say that she is incapable of articulating her claims on her own. Plaintiff does 

allege that her legal documents have been confiscated, but she has not described what these 

documents are, or why she needs them to prosecute this case that, for the time being, remains at 

the screening stage. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 6, 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 she 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 motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 6, is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 11/08/23 Page 4 of 4