Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02167/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02167-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

RANDY LAMAR BLACK,

Plaintiff,

v. 

P. THOMPSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-2167-TLN-EFB (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a federal inmate proceeding without counsel in a civil action. In addition to 

filing a complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(see ECF Nos. 9, 27), several motions to amend or supplement his complaint (ECF Nos. 3, 7, 10, 

24), two motions seeking injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 8, 31), a request for compassionate release 

(ECF No. 29), and a request for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 1 & 7). Plaintiff’s filings 

are addressed below.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).1 However, 

a review of court records reflects that plaintiff has been designated a “three-strikes” litigant for 

1

 Accordingly, the court withdraws the February 17, 2022 findings and recommendations 

(ECF No. 13) recommending that this case be dismissed because plaintiff had not submitted the 

required trust account statement. The required trust account statement was filed on June 10, 

2022. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff’s request for the court to “address th[e] issue” regarding his trust 

account statement (ECF No. 27) is denied as moot. 

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 7
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

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Black v. Zenk, 1:06-cv-00160-CAP (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 

2006). A three-strikes litigant may only proceed in forma pauperis “if the complaint makes a 

plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury’ at the 

time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiff’s 

complaint satisfies the imminent danger exception. See ECF No. 1 at 6 (alleging he has been 

denied medical care for lingering respiratory problems from prior COVID-19 infection). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. By separate 

order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the 

appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

Screening Pursuant to § 1915A(a)

A. Screening Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or 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. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 7
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

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

B. Screening Order

The only claims that may proceed in this action must relate to the alleged imminent 

danger. See Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 700 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, the alleged imminent danger 

concerns plaintiff’s respiratory problems caused by a prior COVID-19 infection. In this regard, 

plaintiff alleges that he was transferred between prisons during two forest fires and could not 

breathe because of the smoke. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Allred did not 

check on him for six days and failed to follow through on a promise of antibiotics. Id. Plaintiff 

does not allege whether Dr. Allred was aware of plaintiff’s breathing problems or what caused the 

six-day delay. Nor does plaintiff allege why he needed antibiotics or how he was harmed by not 

receiving them. Plaintiff also claims that Warden Brown would not allow him ice for a fever. Id. 

Plaintiff does not allege why Brown would not allow him ice or how this harmed him. According 

to plaintiff, “FCI Herlong will let him die if gets sick again.” Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to survive screening. Deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs consists of two requirements, one objective and the other subjective. Jett v. 

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quoting Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff must first

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 7
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

establish a “serious medical need” by showing that “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could 

result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett, 439 

F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991)). “Second, the 

plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (citing 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). The subjective element is satisfied where prison officials “deny, 

delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 

390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). “[T]he official must be both aware of facts from which the inference 

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 

inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Inadequate treatment due to medical 

malpractice, negligence, or even gross negligence, does not rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991) 

(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). In 

an amended complaint, if plaintiff chooses to file one, he should specify how each individual 

defendant responded to his serious medical needs with deliberate indifference and how their acts 

or omissions caused him harm. 

After plaintiff filed the original complaint on November 22, 2021, he filed numerous 

motions to amend and/or supplement his complaint. See ECF No. 3 (entitled “supplement to 

breach of contract,” and requesting that it be filed and attached to the original complaint); ECF 

No. 7 (entitled “Request to Enter the Following as Evidence to Support Claim”); ECF No. 10 

(notifying court that warden named in original complaint “should not be held responsible” 

because there is now a new warden); ECF No. 24 (“Request to Supplement”). Filing separate 

documents that are intended to be read together as a single complaint is not the proper procedure 

for amending or supplementing a complaint. To add, omit, or correct information in the operative 

complaint, plaintiff must file another complaint that is complete within itself. This is because an 

amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is 

filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. 

/////

/////

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 7
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

Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, 

the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 

Cir. 1967)). 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint (and the intended amendments and supplements 

thereto) is dismissed with leave to amend in accordance with the requirements set forth in this 

order. 

C. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 

persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 

rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George, 507 F.3d at 607. 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Motions for Injunctive Relief

On December 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court “order the 

Warden to start his [blood pressure] medication immediately,” which the court construes as a 

motion for injunctive relief. See ECF No. 8 at 3. On August 1, 2022, plaintiff filed another 

motion for preliminary injunctive relief pertaining to his medical needs. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff, 

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 7
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 

6

however, fails to meet the minimum threshold for merit to satisfy the standard for a preliminary 

injunction.2 At an irreducible minimum, he must demonstrate that there is at least a fair chance of 

success on the merits. Johnson v. California State Board of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430, 

1433 (9th Cir. 1995); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 

1982). As discussed above, the complaint must be dismissed and at present plaintiff has shown 

no likelihood of success on the merits of any claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions, construed 

as those for injunctive relief, must be denied. 

Motion for Compassionate Release

Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking compassionate release. ECF No. 29. A request to 

be released from custody cannot be adjudicated in this civil rights action. See Nettles v. Grounds, 

830 F.3d 922, 927-931 (9th Cir. 2016) (claims which would result in immediate release if 

successful fall within core of habeas corpus; claims which would not necessarily affect the length 

of time to be served if successful fall outside core of habeas corpus and must be brought, if at all, 

under § 1983). 

Request for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 1 & 7. District courts 

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. 

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may 

request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 

1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court 

must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 

2

 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be 

indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 

143 (9th Cir.1964). The moving party must prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits, “that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). 

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there 

are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. The February 17, 2022 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13) are 

WITHDRAWN; 

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and 

plaintiff’s related motion (ECF No. 27) is DENIED as moot; 

3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed concurrently 

herewith;

4. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 

days of service of this order and the motions to amend or supplement his 

complaint (ECF Nos. 3, 7, 10, & 24) are DENIED as moot; 

5. Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 8, 31), construed as motions for injunctive relief, are

DENIED without prejudice; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 29) is DENIED; 

7. Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 1 & 7) are DENIED 

without prejudice; and

8. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 

action. 

DATED: August 5, 2022. 

Case 2:21-cv-02167-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/05/22 Page 7 of 7