Jordan v. Sacramento Superior Court et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/19/12: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARV L. JORDAN,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV 2:12-cv-0291-KJM-JFM (PS)

vs.
GWEON, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

16
17

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

18

302(c)(21).

19

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

20

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

21

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

22
23

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

24

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915(e)(2).

26

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

1

28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

2

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

3

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

4

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

5

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

6

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

7

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

8

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

9

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

10

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

11

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

12

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

file an amended complaint.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

1

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

2

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

3

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

4

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

5

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

6

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

7

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

8

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

9

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

10

2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

11

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

12

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

13

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

14

this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two

15

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

16

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

17

DATED: March 19, 2012.

18
19
20
21

/014;jord0291.ifp-lta

22
23
24
25
26
3