Alston v. City of Elk Grove et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/22/11 ORDERING that plf's 11 , 13 Motions to Seal are DENIED; absent further order of the court, the Clerk shall file all documents submitted by plf regardless of whether plf makes a request to seal documents. Clerk to file all documents submitted by plf on 07/06/11 and 07/21/11 ( 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ); plf's 12 , 16 Amended Complaints are DISMISSED with 30 days leave to amend. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CD ALSTON,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-11-678 KJM CMK (TEMP) PS

vs.
CITY OF ELK GROVE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se andin forma pauperis. This proceeding

17

was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On July 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an

18

amended complaint against the Elk Grove Police Department and various Elk Grove Police

19

officers. On July 21, 2011, plaintiff filed another amended complaint, this time alleging claims

20

against the Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento Police officers. The incidents giving

21

rise to the different amended complaints are unrelated.

22

Plaintiff requests all documents she submits in connection with the amended

23

complaints be sealed. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the sealing of the documents and

24

the request will be denied. See Local Rule 141.

25
26

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if
the action is legally “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. 28 U.S.C.

1
2

§ 1915(e)(2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

3

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

4

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

5

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

6

490 U.S. at 327.

7

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

8

more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements

9

of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other

10

words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

11

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a

12

claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

13

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

14

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129

15

S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be

16

granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

17

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.

18

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

19

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so vague and conclusory

20

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

21

relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement

22

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading

23

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

24

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

25

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

26

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.
2

1

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

2

an amended complaint.

3

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

4

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

6

in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).

7

Because plaintiff is attempting to litigate all of her complaints against police

8

officers in the Sacramento region, her complaints at this point are confusing, at best. It appears

9

that plaintiff has had various encounters with police personnel, all of which have caused plaintiff

10

great dissatisfaction. That dissatisfaction, however, does not necessarily a constitutional claim

11

make.

12

Plaintiff is advised that the Civil Rights Act provides as follows:

13

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

14
15
16

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

17

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

18

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

19

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

20

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

21

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

22

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

23

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

24

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

25

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

26

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862
3

1

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

2

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

3

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

4

Cir. 1982).

5

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

6

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

7

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

8

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

9

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

10

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

11

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

12

alleged.

13

Plaintiff attempts to bring unrelated claims in one action. In any amended

14

complaint, plaintiff may allege claims arising only out of the incident involving the Elk Grove

15

Police Officers. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in an action against Sacramento Police Officers,

16

she must initiate a new action.

17

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s request to seal documents is denied. Absent further order of the

19

court, the Clerk shall file all documents submitted by plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff

20

makes a request to seal documents. The Clerk of Court is directed to file all documents

21

submitted by plaintiff on July 6 and July 21, 2011.

22

2. Plaintiff's amended complaints are dismissed;

23

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

24

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the docket

26

number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file
4

1

an original and two copies of the second amended complaint; failure to file a second amended

2

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

3

dismissed.

4
5

DATED: July 22, 2011

6

______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11

JMM
alston.ifp-lta

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5