Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00518-2/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 

PETER JON ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-518-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 

December 2, 2019, the court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend for: (1) failure to state 

a cognizable claim and (2) attempting to join unrelated claims. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff was given 

thirty days to file an amended complaint and, when that time period elapsed without any amended 

complaint being filed, the court recommended that this case be dismissed. ECF No. 15. The 

same day that recommendation was filed, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, the pending findings and recommendations are vacated and the court screens the 

amended complaint. However, for the reasons discussed below, the amended complaint should 

be dismissed without further leave to amend. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-00518-KJM-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 3
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 

 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 

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 

 In a brief, three-page amended complaint, plaintiff concedes that he cannot name any of 

the defendants allegedly responsible for failing to protect him from attacks by other inmates. 

ECF No. 16 at 1-2. He states “[a]t this time plaintiff is unable to provide any names of the 

Case 2:19-cv-00518-KJM-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 3
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 

correctional officers responsible for my safety and security . . . .” Id. at 1. And there are no 

other, non-correctional officer defendants named in the body of the complaint. Plaintiff cannot 

proceed with an action against only “Doe” defendants. See, e.g., Cloud v. Doel, No. 2:17-cv00339 GGH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101516, *2 (E.D. Cal. June. 29, 2017) (“In some cases, the 

naming of Doe defendants would be appropriate if discovery of a properly named defendant 

could later disclose the identities of the Doe defendants. However, this case cannot proceed 

where the only remaining defendants are unidentified Doe defendants, i.e., there are no 

identifiable defendants against whom discovery could be taken.”). And he has provided no 

indication that he is in the process of obtaining, or is likely to obtain the name of any viable 

defendant in the foreseeable future. Thus, the court concludes that further leave to amend would 

be futile. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings and recommendations issued on January 

13, 2020 (ECF No. 15) are withdrawn. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 16) be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 11, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-00518-KJM-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 3