Ento v. The People of the State of California

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/10/2013 GRANTING plaintiff's 7 motion to proceed IFP; plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent Sheriff of Sacramento County order; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; and plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-02248- AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1).

22
23
24

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Accordingly, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§

25

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in

26

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct

27

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and

28

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments
1

1

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account.

2

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time

3

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915(b)(2).

5

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

6

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

7

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

8

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

9

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

10

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

11

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

12

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

13

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

14

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

15

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

16

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

17

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

18

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

19

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

20

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

21

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

22

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

23

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

24

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

25

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

26

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is

27

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The

28

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required
2

1

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

2

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones

3

v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at

4

least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's

5

claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),

6

the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended

7

complaint.

8
9

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

10

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

11

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

12

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

13

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

14

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

15

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

16

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

17

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

18

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted.

26

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff

27

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

28

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the
3

1

Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith.

2

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.

3

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

4

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

5

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

6

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and

7

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

8

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

9

DATED: December 10, 2013

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Sh