Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00055-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Jones
Defendant
Brad Rose
Defendant
Sacramento County
Defendant
Raghvendra Singh
Plaintiff
Raj Singh
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, also known as 

Raj Singh, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-CV-0055-DMC-P

ORDER

and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 9. 

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

Case 2:23-cv-00055-DAD-DMC Document 13 Filed 05/17/24 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

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 

impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 

and conclusory. 

 In the one-page first amended complaint, Plaintiff names Scott Jones and Brad 

Rose. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiff alleges facts in his amended complaint identical to those in his 

initial complaint but has removed Sacramento County as a defendant. See ECF Nos. 1 and 9. The 

initial complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 7.

As with the original complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were responsible 

for a for a series of abuses while Plaintiff was held in the Sacramento County Jail as Defendants 

did not take action to prevent these abuses. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiff claims that he was “sexually 

misused” while in the Sacramento County Jail. See id. at 1. Plaintiff claims that unnamed officers 

broke his legs and “misused” him to extract a false confession. See id. Plaintiff further claims 

that guards took documents and evidence from him related to his trial. See id. Plaintiff claims that 

he was not provided with proper medical care for his personal medical needs and was not 

provided proper equipment to prevent the spread of COVID-19. See id. Finally, Plaintiff claims 

that he was not provided with food that conformed to his religious beliefs. See id. 

 Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim because 

Plaintiff failed to allege facts linking any of the named defendants to a constitutional violation. 

See ECF No. 7. The Court advised Plaintiff of the appropriate legal standard requiring a causal 

connection to be alleged. See id. Despite the Court’s guidance, the first amended complaint 

continues to suffer the same defect. Plaintiff fails to state any claims for relief because he has not 

set forth specific facts as to each named defendant’s causal role in an alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-00055-DAD-DMC Document 13 Filed 05/17/24 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

 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 

cured by amending the complaint further, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to 

dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc). 

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows:

 1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this case. 

 2. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 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 14 days 

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 16, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00055-DAD-DMC Document 13 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 3