Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00861-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

AL-MON JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ALLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00861-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER 

FINDING THAT THE OPERATIVE 

COMPLAINT STATES VIABLE EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT AND STATE LAW 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

REYNOLDS, CHILDRESS, ALLAN, 

ROMO, AND DOES

ECF No. 1-1

ORDER

THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED 

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT 

JUDGE TO THIS MATTER

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENT CLAIMS BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS 

Plaintiff brought this action in state court alleging violations of his federal and state rights 

based on an incident in which defendants allegedly allowed other inmates to attack him and, 

afterwards, failed to procure him medical aid for the serious wounds he sustained. ECF No. 1-1 

at 103-05. The case was removed to this court by defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff names four 

Case 2:24-cv-00861-DJC-JDP Document 6 Filed 07/18/24 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

officers—Allan, Romo, Childress, and Reynolds—as defendants. He also alleges that an 

uncertain number of “Doe” defendants were involved, but these have not been identified or 

served yet. After reviewing the complaint, I find that it states viable claims against all defendants 

for violations of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, and state law causes of negligence, Bane 

Act, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The “Doe” defendants cannot 

be served, however, unless and until they are identified. Plaintiff’s complaint fails, however, to 

state a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim in connection with the incident. In the context of 

failure to protect and failure to provide medical care, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to 

pretrial detainees and not convicted prisoners. 

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00861-DJC-JDP Document 6 Filed 07/18/24 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

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

As stated above, the complaint states, for screening purposes, viable Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect and failure to provide medical care claims against all defendants. It also states 

viable state law claims for negligence, Bane Act, and negligent and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. It fails, as stated above, to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim because 

failure to protect and inadequate medical care claims under that amendment apply only to pretrial 

detainees. See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[M]edical care 

claims brought by pretrial detainees also arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process 

Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause . . . .”). 

These claims should be dismissed without leave to amend, as plaintiff appears incapable of 

arguing that he was a pretrial detainee at the time they occurred and, thus, any attempt to renew 

them would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (noting that, while dismissal should typically be with leave to amend, a court may 

dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file an answer to the operative complaint within twenty-one days of 

this order’s entry. 

2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect 

and failure to provide medical care claims 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 of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

Case 2:24-cv-00861-DJC-JDP Document 6 Filed 07/18/24 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

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

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

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00861-DJC-JDP Document 6 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 4