Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01833/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01833-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TERESSITA DIRIGE, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff complaint, filed on December 8, 2015, is currently 

before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Screening Requirement

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the 

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

Case 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Teressita Dirige; (2) Katthleen O’ Brian; 

(3) Pam Ahlin; (4) Jessica C.; (5) Kim Wyatt; (6) Jessica Prown; (7) Samantha Perryman; (8) 

Stsfeni Vally; (9) Lora Celis; (10) Ruth Muthima; (11) Audry King; (12) Earick James; and (13) 

Brandon Price.

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Plaintiff was assalted while standing in the medichion line too receve his 

medichions the following defendants violited plaintiffs constutional rights rule 30 

and rule 26 which clearly states that plaintiff has a undiputed right to be protected 

at all time by the defendants haveing custodt of plaintiff subsequent to 

certification that movant has ingood faith conferred or attempted to confer with 

outher affected parties to resolve this dispute without court atctio by filling a 

patients rights complaint which was dissmissed at all levels . Civ R. 26 (c) (1) all 

defendants with thecepthions of Pam Ahlin and Audry King and Brandon Price 

responded to an alarm in unit 1 of coalinga state hospital nun of the stated 

defendants made eney attempt to protect plaintiff defendants Ahlin and King and 

Price failed to punish the patients that assalted plaintiff and protect plaintiff by 

placing him in a single room where he is the soule person living in that room 

hence forth plaintiff would be out of harms way plaintiff is still in harms way too 

this very day due too sead employees failure to comply to the constution and the 

law of the state of californis conserning this matter.

(ECF No. 1, p. 2) (unedited text).

III. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Plaintiff reports that he has brought only 1 lawsuit while in custody, Cranford v. State of 

California, Case No. 1:14-cv-00749-DLB PC. (ECF No. 1, p. 1). However, a review of the 

Court’s own records reveals that Plaintiff’s assertion is not only a misrepresentation, but also 

patently false. A court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States 

v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

fact that Plaintiff, while a civil detainee, has initiated more than thirty previous cases with is 

Court concerning his conditions of confinement.

1

 

In the past, Plaintiff has been sanctioned and has been admonished for not being truthful 

in his representations to the Court. See Cranford v. Ahlin, 1:11-cv-01199-GBC, ECF No. 6; 

Cranford v. Valley, 1:13-cv-0533 JLT, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff also has been declared a vexatious 

litigant subject to a pre-filing order for each new in forma pauperis case he files in this Court 

after September 27, 2016. See Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS, ECF 

No. 77.

In light of Plaintiff’s repeated disregard of his Rule 11 obligations, he is admonished that 

any future violations in this action may result in the issuance of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; 

Local Rule 110. 

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 

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

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[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 

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but does not contain a plain statement of his claims 

showing that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed and difficult to 

understand, filled with typographical errors and conclusory statements. Plaintiff’s limited factual 

allegations are not sufficient to clearly state what happened, when it happened and who was 

 

1

 As a representative sample, the Court identifies of the following ten cases: (1) Cranford v. Medina, Case 

No. 1:13-cv-00210-EPG; (2) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00581-MJS; (3) Cranford v. Perryman, Case 

No. 1:13-cv-00763; (4) Cranford v. Perryman, 1:13-cv-853-GSA; (5) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv00854-SKO; (6) Cranford v. King, Case No. 1:13-cv-01658-SKO; (7) Cranford v. Smith, Case No. 1:13-cv-01886-

LJO-BAM; (8) Cranford v. Crawford, Case No. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS; (9) Cranford v. Wyatt, Case No. 1:14-

cv-00136-GSA; and (10) Cranford v. Tinna, Case No. 1;14-cv-00171-SAB. 

Case 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

involved. Plaintiff also does not identify whether defendants are employees of Coalinga State 

Hospital and, if so, what their positions or titles are at the hospital. 

C. Fourteenth Amendment

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff’s right to personal safety is protected by the substantive 

component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 

U.S. 307, 315 (1982). Under this provision of the Constitution, Plaintiff is “entitled to more 

considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22). Thus, to avoid liability, defendants’ decisions must be 

supported by “professional judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. A defendant fails to use 

professional judgment when his or her decision is “such a substantial departure from accepted 

professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that [he or she] did not base the 

decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for failure to protect under this standard. 

The Court cannot ascertain from Plaintiff’s conclusory statements what happened, where it 

happened or what the individual defendants did or did not do that violated Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. Further, Plaintiff’s allegation concerning the type of punishment meted out 

to other patients does not implicate Plaintiff’s own Due Process rights. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 

state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff an to cure the identified deficiencies to 

the extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citations omitted). 

Case 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 5