Richards v. Walensky

Background

Larry Richards filed a complaint against numerous defendants, including various government officials and Dr. Masami Hattori. He represented himself. Richards also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to stop the defendants from continuing to reduce the quantities of his prescriptions.

The court had previously denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and his first request for a temporary restraining order without prejudice. Richards then filed a first amended complaint and renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. He did not pay the filing fee, so the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the court to review certain unpaid complaints to determine whether they state a claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the amended complaint again failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court had previously instructed Richards not to file a piecemeal complaint or temporary restraining-order application, but Richards acknowledged that his new filings were partial and incomplete and asked for additional time to finish them.

The court also found that Richards had not corrected the other deficiencies identified in the earlier order. It said he needed to meet basic pleading requirements so the court could determine whether there was a legal basis for his claims. For example, Richards referred to the Eighth Amendment right to medical treatment. The court explained that this protection applies to prisoners and stated that Richards was not incarcerated, despite his argument that he was a “prisoner in confinement to Defendants” based on their treatment decisions. The court concluded that it remained unclear what legal basis supported Richards’s claims and what each defendant allegedly did that violated the law.

The court also rejected Richards’s argument that the complaint had to be accepted under authority from the Fourth Circuit. It stated that binding Ninth Circuit authority requires courts to read self-represented pleadings liberally, but that requirement did not excuse Richards from presenting his claims in a complete complaint. The court further noted that a temporary restraining order could not be considered without a viable legal claim and that the likelihood of success on the claims is one factor relevant to such relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It denied the motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to renewal after Richards files a complaint that sufficiently alleges a claim for relief.

The court gave Richards one final chance to file an amended complaint and a motion to proceed without paying the filing fee within 45 days of the order. It directed him to review the deficiencies identified in the earlier and current orders. The court warned that the next amended complaint would be dismissed in its entirety without further leave to amend if it did not correct those deficiencies. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also stated that the court would not consider piecemeal filings or assemble the claims from other materials.