Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Bennett
Plaintiff
Hambun
Defendant
Monroe Detention Center
Defendant
Gavin Newsom
Defendant
Sergeant
Defendant
Vargas
Defendant

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 

DAVID BENNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB (PC) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 which was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 6, 7. Both are addressed below. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or 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. § 1915A(b). 

 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 

case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 

things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 

term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 

but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 

(discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 

allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 

facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[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. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

A. Allegations of the Complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants (Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Hambun, Correctional 

Officer Vargas, an unidentified Sergeant, and the Monroe Detention Center) are denying him his 

First Amendment right to access the courts by refusing to transfer plaintiff’s money to pay filing 

fees or to process fee waiver applications in Bennett v. Monroe Det’n Ctr., et al., E.D. Cal. Case 

No. 2:22-cv-2157-DP P (hereinafter Bennett 1) and Bennett v. Santa Clara County Super. Ct., et 

al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 2:22-cv-07673-JSC (hereinafter Bennett 2). 

A review of the dockets of those actions reveals the following information1

: In Bennett 1, 

the court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis after taking judicial notice of 

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and certified trust account statement in Bennett v. 

Newsom, 2:23-cv-00040-DAD-CKD P. Bennet 1, ECF No. 31. In Bennett 2, the court denied 

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that plaintiff had over $3000 in his inmate 

trust account. Bennett 2, ECF No. 11, 38. Plaintiff’s motions in Bennett 2 make clear that 

plaintiff did not want to pay the filing fee with COVID-19 stimulus funds received from the 

government. Id., ECF No. 14 at 8-9. The court gave plaintiff many extensions of time to allow 

him to pay the fee or explain how officials were preventing payment of the fee and the steps he 

had taken to request payment. Id., ECF No. 23. The case was ultimately dismissed when 

plaintiff failed to do so. 

//// 

//// 

1

 The court takes judicial notice of the docket and contents of all docket entries in the two 

actions under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2001) overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 

1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015). That right is limited to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, 

habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). 

To state a claim for denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must allege facts 

showing that he has suffered “actual injury,” a jurisdictional requirement derived from the 

standing doctrine. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to 

contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a 

claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 

518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had 

been frustrated’ is fatal” to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (quoting Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 353 & 353 n. 4). For backward-looking denial of access claims, where the defendant’s 

conduct “caused the loss or inadequate settlement” a case, “the complaint must identify a remedy 

that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be 

brought.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413-15 (2002). 

A plaintiff must also allege that the defendant’s conduct prevented him from pursuing a 

non-frivolous case. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3; Allen v. Sakai, 48 

F.3d 1082, 1085 & n.12 (9th Cir. 1994). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To properly plead a 

denial of access to the courts claim, “the complaint should state the underlying claim in 

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), just as if it were being independently 

pursued, and a like plain statement should describe any remedy available under the access claim 

and presently unique to it.” Harbury, 536 U.S. at 417-18. 

Plaintiff has not alleged the claims underlying Bennet 1 or Bennet 2. Moreover, the 

dockets for those actions show that the cases were not impeded by the conduct of state actors 

concerning plaintiff’s fee payment and/or in forma pauperis status, as plaintiff alleges in this 

action. Rather, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma paupers in Bennet 1 and was 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 8
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 

denied such status based on having sufficient funds to pay the fee in Bennet 2. Bennet 1 is 

ongoing. In Bennett 2, the court dismissed the action only after giving plaintiff the opportunity to 

pay the fee or explain how state actors were preventing him from doing so – an opportunity 

plaintiff did not avail himself of. 

C. Leave to Amend. 

The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to 

cure the defects identified in this order. Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s direction to state each claim in a short and plain manner. The amended 

complaint must contain facts – not legal conclusions – supporting each element of the claims 

alleged. 

Any amended complaint must not join unrelated claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are against a single defendant. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit 

where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 

or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” Unrelated claims against different defendants must therefore be pursued in separate 

lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only 

to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to 

ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees— for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 

3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the 

required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 

Any amended complaint must also contain a caption that includes the names of all 

defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). However, it should identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right and 

the allegations of the complaint must make clear how each defendant so participated. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

6 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

IV. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for temporary restraining order, alleging that officials commit 

rape, false imprisonment, medical battery, and other bad acts against him when he tries to file an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. 

A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); Haw. County Green Party v. Clinton, 980 F. Supp. 

1160, 1164 (D. Haw. 1997) (“The standards for granting a temporary restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction are identical.”); cf. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (observing that an analysis of a preliminary injunction is 

“substantially identical” to an analysis of a temporary restraining order). The purpose of the 

order is to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary to 

hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 

423, 439 (1974). 

To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

7 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). 

Plaintiff has not made the showing required to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. He 

offers no argument or evidence concerning the merits, balance of equities, or public interest, and 

offers only vague and outlandish statements about the alleged harm he faces. E.g., ECF No. 6 at 

2 (alleging that he has been given a “fake COVID-19 vaccine to modify my behavior using 4th 

Amendment taunting device nano technology I can feel move around like a big spider in my 

stomic [sic] constituting a form of laughing gas to lose focus of filling [sic] any complaints”). 

Accordingly, the court will recommend that the motion be denied. 

V. Order and Recommendation 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 

days of service of this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to 

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. 

It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order 

(ECF No. 6) be DENIED. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

8 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 19, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB Document 8 Filed 07/22/24 Page 8 of 8