Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00943-0/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

JOSHUWA R. VINYARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KONRAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00943-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

ECF Nos. 1 & 2

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several defendants at California State 

Prison-Sacramento. ECF No. 1. He has joined multiple, unrelated claims against more than one 

defendant, however, in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, I will give 

him leave to amend. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 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 

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/18/24 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

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)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff’s complaint impermissibly joins at least two separate and unrelated claims 

against multiple defendants. First, he alleges that, on an unspecified date, defendants Alvarez, 

Spears, Velasquez, Cox, and Arana violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive 

force against him. ECF No. 1 at 5. These officers allegedly dislocated his shoulders and caused 

him various other injuries while restraining him. Id. Separately, after being medically treated for 

the first incident, plaintiff alleges that defendant Konrad accosted him and grabbed him by the 

throat. Id. He also claims that Konrad deprived him of his CPAP machine. Id. at 5-6. The 

claims regarding the first excessive force incident and the claims against Konrad do not appear 

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/18/24 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

sufficiently related to proceed together. Plaintiff must amend his complaint to include only 

related claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) 

(“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should 

not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”).

Plaintiff 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). The amended 

complaint should be titled “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 file an amended 

complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that claims and 

parties be dropped so that only related claims remain. 

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order.

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 3