Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01252-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGINA JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-001252-KJM-JDP (PS)

ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

DENYING HIS MOTION TO RECUSE, 

FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT DOES 

NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULES, 

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

AMEND

ECF Nos. 1, 5, & 22

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, alleges numerous violations of his 

rights by more than thirty defendants at California State Prison Sacramento. The complaint, 

insofar as it does not put forth a “short and plain statement” showing that plaintiff is entitled to 

relief, is deficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). I will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his

complaint to remedy this issue. I will also, in light of the district judge’s recent order, ECF No. 

21, grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5. Finally, I will deny 

plaintiff’s motion that I recuse myself. ECF No. 22. 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 25 Filed 03/05/24 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 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)).

Analysis

Plaintiff’s complaint runs to fifty pages and implicates approximately thirty 

defendants, some of whom are identified only as “Does.” Moreover, the complaint is not 

organized in a manner that permits the reader to grasp how many claims are being made against 

each defendant. Across numerous pages, plaintiff lists various violations of his rights, including 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 25 Filed 03/05/24 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

an Eighth Amendment use of excessive force, a First Amendment claim for abridging his free 

speech, separate claims for First Amendment retaliation and selective enforcement, and due 

process claims. I can understand what is alleged to have befallen plaintiff in a narrative sense, but 

the complaint fails to connect each violation of his rights to the relevant named defendants. If 

plaintiff wishes to name numerous defendants and to invoke several, presumably related, 

violations of his rights, he would do better to organize his complaint in a defendant-by-defendant 

manner so that each defendant can easily tell how he or she is alleged to have wronged plaintiff. 

See Bonnette v. Dick, No. 1:18-cv-0046-DAD-BAM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108896, *19 (E.D. 

Cal. June, 2020) (“Plaintiffs must clearly identify which defendant(s) they believe are responsible 

for each violation of their constitutional rights and set forth the supporting factual basis so that the 

complaint places each defendant on notice of Plaintiffs’ claims against him or her.”). 

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current one. 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.

Lastly, I will deny plaintiff’s motion that I recuse myself. ECF No. 22. He argues that I 

have evidenced a “clear bias” against him, as demonstrated by an alleged unwillingness to 

“mov[e] the matter forward in the speediest manner.” Id. at 1. A judge must disqualify himself 

or herself in any proceeding in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 

U.S.C. § 455(a). Additionally, a judge must recuse when a party files “timely and sufficient 

affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either 

against him or in favor of any adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. Plaintiff has not offered any 

convincing argument or evidence that I am biased against him. His claim that this case is not 

moving forward in “the speediest manner” is not evidence of bias. For this argument to have any 

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 25 Filed 03/05/24 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

persuasive value plaintiff would have to provide data that his case is an outlier and that all or 

most other prisoner cases assigned to me are being prioritized or treated differently. He has failed 

to do so. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint. If he does not, I may recommend that this action be dismissed. 

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

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED as 

falling within the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g).

4. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, ECF No. 22, is DENIED. 

5. Plaintiff’s notice of action, ECF No. 24, construed as a motion, is DENIED as 

unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01252-DC-JDP Document 25 Filed 03/05/24 Page 4 of 4