Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554-4/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

JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT R. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND HIS MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

ECF Nos. 5 & 16

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF No. 18

SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:

(1) STAND BY HIS AMENDED 

COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL;

(2) FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 17

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff, who is confined at the Sacramento County Jail, brings numerous unrelated 

claims in a lengthy and difficult-to-understand complaint that cannot proceed past screening. He 

may file an amended complaint that contains only related claims and sets forth its allegations in a 

cogent manner. I will also grant plaintiff’s latest application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 

No. 5, and his motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 16.

1

 I will 

deny his request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 18. 

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 

1 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 17, is timely. 

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 5
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

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 noted above, plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple separate and unrelated claims. For 

instance, he alleges that, in November 2022, defendant Le violated his rights by finding him 

guilty of a disciplinary violation without sufficient process. ECF No. 17 at 5. Separately, he 

alleges that in June 2022, unnamed Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies destroyed his property 

during a search of his cell and used excessive force against him during a strip search of his 

person. Id. at 10. In another claim, plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by another inmate in 

January 2022 and, despite being innocent of any wrongdoing, was punitively rehoused. Id. at 16. 

The forty-four-page complaint also contains other claims that bear no apparent relation to the 

aforementioned claims. Claims against multiple defendants can only proceed if they are based on 

the same “series of transactions or occurrences” and common questions of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

20(a)(2). Plaintiff’s claims are not based on the same transactions or occurrences. 

On a more basic level, the complaint is hard to understand insofar as the handwriting is 

faded in parts, see ECF No. 17 at 13-14, and not separated into paragraphs or subsections. 

Additionally, many of the named defendants receive, as best I can tell, no explicit mention in the 

body of the complaint. Plaintiff may remedy these deficiencies in any amended complaint he 

chooses to file.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. 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 “Second

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 5
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

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Motion to Appoint Counsel

I will also deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. He 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 plaintiff. 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. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, 

plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 

plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied without prejudice. 

I may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so 

require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation 

of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, and his motion for

extension of time, ECF No. 16, are GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18, is DENIED without 

prejudice.

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that contains only related claims. 

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

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 5