Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650-2/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

DURELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MORENO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00650-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:

(1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 

SUBJECT TO A 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND 

PARTIES, OR

(2) FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 12

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants Smith, Haynes, Williams, and Moreno 

violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by refusing to acknowledge that he was suicidal 

and then failing to help him once he started a fire in his cell. Separately, he alleges that defendant 

Haynes violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for “complaining.” I have 

screened the amended complaint and determined that the complaint contains multiple, unrelated 

claims against more than one defendant. Plaintiff may either proceed only with his Eighth

Amendment claims or delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint.

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 13 Filed 11/03/22 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

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 

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 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 13 Filed 11/03/22 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 alleges that, on May 6, 2021, he told defendants Smith, Williams, Haynes, and 

Moreno that he needed to be placed on suicide watch. ECF No. 12 at 4. They ignored his request 

and, after plaintiff set a fire in his cell, delayed removing him until after he had suffered from 

smoke inhalation. Id. These allegations are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Separately, plaintiff alleges that defendant Haynes falsified a disciplinary report against 

him for “complaining.” Id. at 5. He does not specify whether his complaints were put into a 

prison grievance, legal filing, or merely uttered aloud to the defendant. Regardless, plaintiff has 

not alleged facts linking this First Amendment violation with the foregoing violation of his Eighth 

Amendment rights. 

Plaintiff may proceed only with his Eighth Amendment claims and dismiss his first 

Amendment claims. Or he may delay serving any defendant and amend his complaint to include 

only related claims. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, 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 

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either advise the court 

of his intent to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment claims and to dismiss all other claims or 

to file an amended complaint.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 

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

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 13 Filed 11/03/22 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 13 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 4