Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01443/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01443-1/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

LINUS EKENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. COOK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01443-TLN-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT 

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

STATES COGNIZABLE FIRST 

AMENDMENT AND EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS COOK, LAUGHLIN, AND 

AGREDANO 

ECF No. 13

On December 21, 2022, I found service appropriate for defendants Cook, Laughlin, and 

Agredano based on the allegations in plaintiff’s initial complaint. ECF No. 10. Specifically, I 

found that the complaint stated viable First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against these three defendants. ECF Nos. 8 & 10. After I directed service, 

plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, ECF No. 13, which also states viable First and Eighth 

Amendment claims against these same three defendants. Accordingly, I direct defendants to 

respond to the amended complaint. 

 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01443-DJC-JDP Document 17 Filed 03/06/23 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

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 

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)).

Analysis

As in his initial complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against him for filing 

prison grievances by poisoning his food and using excessive force against him. ECF No. 13 at 7, 

12. These allegations are substantively the same as the ones I found cognizable in the previous 

complaint and, thus, I direct defendants to respond to the first amended complaint within the time 

provided for by the federal rules of civil procedure. 

It is so ORDERED.

Case 2:22-cv-01443-DJC-JDP Document 17 Filed 03/06/23 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01443-DJC-JDP Document 17 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 3