Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00056-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, also known as 

Raj Singh, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-CV-0056-DAD-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 9. 

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

Case 2:23-cv-00056-DAD-DMC Document 15 Filed 07/25/24 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

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 

impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 

and conclusory. 

 In the one-page first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: 

(1) Scott Jones; (2) Chris Carlson; and (3) Greg Turner. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiff alleges facts in 

his amended complaint substantially similar to those in his initial complaint but has removed 

Sacramento County as a defendant and has added Defendant Carlson and Defendant Turner. See

ECF Nos. 1 and 9. The initial complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 

7. 

 According to Plaintiff, he was released from the Sacramento County Jail on 

October 14, 2022, to serve three years of probation. See ECF No. 9. As in the original complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges the Defendants breached their duty to provide medical services, gate fees, 

housing, and other financial services upon his release. See id. Plaintiff further claims that 

Defendants refused to send Plaintiff to his home in Nevada. See id. Plaintiff seeks compensatory 

damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and other relief as deemed appropriate by 

the Court. See id. 

 Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim because 

Plaintiff failed to allege facts linking any of the named defendants to a constitutional violation. 

See ECF No. 7. The Court advised Plaintiff of the appropriate legal standard requiring a causal 

connection to be alleged. See id. Despite the Court’s guidance, the first amended complaint 

continues to suffer the same defect. Plaintiff fails to state any claims for relief because he has not 

set forth specific facts as to each named defendant’s causal role in an alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00056-DAD-DMC Document 15 Filed 07/25/24 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

 On May 16, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations that this action 

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed 

objections on June 3, 2024. See ECF No. 14. In his objections, Plaintiff states that he will be 

retaining private counsel and asks the Court to permit him another opportunity to amend with the 

assistance of counsel. See id. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court will vacate the May 16, 

2024, findings and recommendations and dismiss the first amended complaint with further leave 

to amend consistent with the principles outlined in the Court’s August 15, 2023, initial screening 

order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 16, 2024, ECF No. 13, 

are vacated. 

 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 9, is dismissed with leave to 

amend. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 60 days of the date 

of this order. 

Dated: July 24, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00056-DAD-DMC Document 15 Filed 07/25/24 Page 3 of 3