Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00690/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00690-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Huntington
Plaintiff
Sacramento County
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

MICHAEL HUNTINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-0690-JDP (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendant Sacramento 

County and an indeterminate number of “Doe” medical staff failed to provide him with adequate 

medical treatment. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. For the reasons stated below, his claims against the county 

are non-cognizable, and his claims against the individual medical providers cannot proceed until 

he specifically identifies a defendant who can be served. I will deny his motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, as moot because he has already paid the filing fee. 

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00690-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 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

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)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2023, he began experiencing fever, chills, and 

vomiting. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that despite his submitting multiple requests for medical 

care, staff at the Sacramento County Jail did not provide him with care, and his symptoms 

worsened. Id. Eventually, he fell, struck his head, and was rushed to a hospital where he was 

diagnosed with kidney failure. Id. He also alleges that, after returning to the jail, staff failed to 

provide him with adequate post-surgical care. Id. at 5, 7-11. These allegations fail to state a 

claim against Sacramento County, because plaintiff does not attribute the failings in care to any 

policy or custom of the county. See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 973 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Case 2:24-cv-00690-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 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

His claims against the individual providers appear broadly cognizable insofar as they allege 

constitutionally deficient care, but they cannot proceed in current form for two reasons. First, 

plaintiff has failed to distinguish between the responsible individuals. He broadly alleges that an 

uncertain number of medical staff were responsible for the inadequacy in care but fails to allege 

how each individual defendant was responsible by their own action or inaction. As such, he has 

failed to provide any defendant with adequate notice of the specific claims against him or her. 

Second, absent identification of at least one defendant, no one can be served in connection with 

these claims, and this action cannot proceed. I note that plaintiff does refer to some deputies by 

name in the complaint, but it is unclear whether he intends to bring any claim against these 

individuals, insofar as they are not identified in the caption. 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days that addresses the foregoing 

deficiencies. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 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. If he 

fails to file an amended complaint within the deadline, I may recommend dismissal of this action 

for failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied as moot in light of 

plaintiff paying the filing fee. 

Case 2:24-cv-00690-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00690-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 4