Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00954/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00954-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA NARWARECE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

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

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on July 5, 

2016 (ECF No. 1), is currently before the Court for screening.

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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

Case 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 1 of 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

2

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 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 is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California. Plaintiff 

names Psychiatric Technician Laura Narwarece (“Defendant”) as the sole defendant in this 

action. Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On or about may 21st 2016 Laura Narwarcec displayed discrimination as well as racial 

discrimination laura was handing out snacks and plaintiff approuched to receve his snak 

all P.T. includeing lura delebertly dumped plaintiffs snake on the filthy floor all had a rill 

good laff when luara stated there you go now lick it up nice and cleen for your masters 

misstress and when I came time to shave plaintiff was the verry first in line to receve his 

razior ans laura delebertly made plaintiff whate untill the verry last to recevehis razior all 

defendants are eather mexical or black and plaintiff is white.

(ECF No. 1, p. 3) (unedited text).

Plaintiff also attached his first level appeal to the complaint, without explaining why he 

did so.

1

Plaintiff demands relief in the form of monetary sanctions and injunctive sanctions.

III. Discussion

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Plaintiff reports that he has not brought any lawsuits while in custody. (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 fact that Plaintiff, while a civil detainee, has initiated more than thirty 

previous cases concerning his conditions of confinement in this Court.2 

 

1

If Plaintiff is attempting to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the 

Court advises him that he need not do so, as he is a civil detainee and is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000). 

2

As a representative sample, the Court identifies the following ten cases: (1) Cranford v. Medina, Case No. 1:13-cv00210-EPG; (2) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00581-MJS; (3) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv00763; (4) Cranford v. Perryman, 1:13-cv-853-GSA; (5) Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00854-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 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 2 of 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

3

In the past, Plaintiff has been sanctioned and 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. The Court even just recently admonished Plaintiff for 

misrepresenting the number of cases he has been involved in as a civil detainee. See Cranford v. 

Dirige, Case No. 1:15-cv-01833-AWI-BAM, ECF Nos. 8, 10. 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 

the Court may issue sanctions for any future violations in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Local 

Rule 110.

b. Equal Protection

The Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination and racial discrimination as a 

claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil detainees 

are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious 

discrimination based on race, religion, or membership in a protected class, subject to restrictions 

and limitations necessitated by legitimate penological interests. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 

545-46 (1979). The Equal Protection Clause requires that all persons who are similarly situated 

should be treated alike. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001); City of 

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).

An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant intentionally 

discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's membership in a protected 

class, Lee, 250 F.3d at 686; Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), or that 

similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship 

to a legitimate state purpose, Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 

2005); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant displayed discrimination and racial discrimination towards 

him, but only mentions some facts about race and nothing else about any other kinds of protected 

Case 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 3 of 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

4

classes. To the extent that Plaintiff claims discrimination based on something other than race, he 

fails to allege facts establishing that he was a member of a protected class. As such, the Court 

cannot properly determine on what basis Defendant allegedly discriminated against Plaintiff, if 

any.

Moreover, while race is a protected class, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that 

Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race. While Defendant’s 

alleged act of dumping Plaintiff’s snack on the ground and the statement she made afterwards 

would be inappropriate behavior, nothing in the allegations indicates that Defendant acted that 

way on account of Plaintiff’s race. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant made Plaintiff wait until the 

end to receive his razor fails to allege any facts that Defendant did so because of Plaintiff’s race. 

Furthermore, being members of different races by itself is insufficient to demonstrate 

discrimination on the basis of race. Plaintiff at most alleges facts constituting a coincidence in this 

regard. Accordingly, this claim will be dismissed with leave to amend.

c. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff one 

final opportunity to amend his complaint and cure the deficiencies in this order 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. 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). 

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, the Court advises Plaintiff that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 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.

Case 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 4 of 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

5

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which 

relief may be granted, with leave to amend;

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

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

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

the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and 

failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00954-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/13/17 Page 5 of 5