Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00907/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00907-1/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

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE 

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against several defendants at the Solano County 

Justice Center, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights by retaliating against her for 

filing grievances, that they rejected her grievances, and that they failed to provide adequate 

medical care. After review of the complaint, I find that her First Amendment retaliation claims 

against defendants Hagen and Merrick may proceed. Separately, she has stated a viable 

Fourteenth Amendment claim for denial of adequate medical care against defendant Wong.

However, while viable, these claims are related to proceed jointly. Plaintiff’s other claims are 

non-cognizable. Plaintiff may choose to pursue either her First Amendment claims or her 

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/01/23 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

Fourteenth Amendment claim against Wong. Alternatively, she may delay serving any defendant 

and file an amended complaint.

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. Id. 

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)).

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/01/23 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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Hagen and Merrick have retaliated against her for filing 

grievances by refusing to deliver care packages sent by her husband, refusing to protect her from 

her cellmate, searching her cell, and destroying her personal property. ECF No. 1 at 2. These 

First Amendment claims are cognizable.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Hagen and a physician named Wong have failed to 

adequately treat her attention deficit disorder. Id. at 3. As for Hagen, she alleges that his only 

involvement in her treatment has been denying her grievances. Id. That is insufficient to state a 

claim for inadequate medical treatment. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 

2003) (noting that “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison 

grievance procedure”). As for Wong, plaintiff alleges that he has refused to prescribe her 

medication for attention deficit disorder. ECF No. 1 at 3. She does not explain whether Wong 

has any medical rationale for refusing the requested medication or whether he agrees with her 

diagnosis of attention deficit disorder. Since plaintiff appears to be a pre-trial detainee, however, 

she need only allege that her care has been objectively deliberate indifferent; there is no 

requirement that defendant subjectively understand the risk of denying treatment. See Gordon v. 

Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). Thus, this claim against Wong is viable. 

It is, however, insufficiently related, both legally and factually, to the retaliation claims against 

Hagen and Merrick. Whether Hagen and Merrick are retaliating against plaintiff for filing 

grievances is a separate question from whether Dr. Wong has adequately treated her mental 

alleged attention deficit disorder. Unrelated claims against multiple defendants belong in separate 

suits. 

Plaintiff’s final claim relates to the processing of her grievances and the repeated denial of 

the same. ECF No. 1 at 4. As explained above, there is no constitutional entitlement to any 

grievance process. Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860. 

Plaintiff may choose to proceed in this suit with either her retaliation claims against 

Hagen and Merrick or her deliberate indifference claim against Wong. Alternatively, she may 

delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. She is advised that the amended 

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/01/23 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

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 “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 either indicate her

desire to proceed with either her First Amendment claims against Hagen and Merrick OR her 

Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Wong. Alternatively, she may 

file an amended complaint. If she fails to avail herself of any of these options, I may recommend 

that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00907-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/01/23 Page 4 of 4