Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02737/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02737-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDCR
Defendant
Johnson
Defendant
Mario Sanchez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MARIO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-02737-JDP (PC)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF Nos. 1 & 2

Plaintiff, a state inmate, brings this § 1983 action against correctional officer Johnson and 

CDCR. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required 

showing and will be granted. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, fails to state a claim and will be 

dismissed with leave to amend. 

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, 

Case 2:24-cv-02737-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/18/24 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

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

The complaint alleges in its entirety that “CDCR violated [plaintiff’s] rights by not 

keeping the lawsuit contract rules # 1. The $5,000 payment settlement agreement. CDCR 

misappropriation of funds, false statements, failure to pay, breach of contract, pain and suffering, 

due to not having settlement, hunger issues.”1 ECF No. 1 at 3. 

The complaint’s allegations are sparse and insufficient to notify defendants of the specific 

claim plaintiff is attempting to allege. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific injury caused by 

defendants that can be redressed here. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th 

1 The court understands that plaintiff may be attempting to allege a claim about not 

receiving settlement funds from a prior case. In the action Sanchez v. Johnson, 2:22-cv-00537-

JDP, plaintiff and defendants (including a defendant W. Johnson) filed a voluntary notice of 

dismissal on December 21, 2023 at ECF No. 41. However, it appears that the parties negotiated a 

settlement without court intervention. 

Case 2:24-cv-02737-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/18/24 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

Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will 

supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 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 “First

Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02737-JDP Document 5 Filed 10/18/24 Page 3 of 3