Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CALPIA
Defendant
Andy Howell
Defendant
Jeffrey Macomber
Defendant
Patrick Smith
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

PATRICK SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALPIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT 

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 

VIABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING 

LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF No. 1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF Nos. 2 & 7

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California State Prison, Solano, brings this action against 

defendants and alleges that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to conduct 

inspections of a hot water hose that broke and caused him second degree burns. ECF No. 1 at 3. 

These allegations, for the reasons stated below, do not state a cognizable federal claim. Plaintiff 

will be given leave to amend. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 

No. 2, and deny his motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 7. 

Case 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 05/07/24 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

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 05/07/24 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 he sustained second degree burns after a hot water hose broke and 

spilled onto his skin. ECF No. 1 at 3. He has named three defendants, alleging that Jeffrey 

Macomber, Andy Howell, and the California Prison Industry Authority (“CALPIA”) were

negligent in failing to inspect the hose and in failing to report his injury as serious to the 

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Id. These allegations do not give rise to a 

cognizable federal claim because negligence cannot support an Eighth Amendment claim. See 

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). The alleged failure to comply with state law 

also fails to give rise to any federal claim. See Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t., 159 

F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[S]tate law violations do not, on their own, give rise to liability 

under § 1983.”); Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370-71 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(“Section 1983 limits a federal court’s analysis to the deprivation of rights secured by the federal 

Constitution and laws.”).

 As such, the complaint cannot proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that 

explains what, if any, federal basis exists for his claims. 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). The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” 

and refer to the appropriate case number.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

I will deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 7. He does not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 

(9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent him, see Mallard v. 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). I can only 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request 

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 

exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court 

must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to 

Case 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 05/07/24 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

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In light of my screening order, I 

find that plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and I will deny his 

motion for counsel without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00117-KJM-JDP Document 8 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 4