Gill v. State of California et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/17/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; and Plantiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an Amended Complaint. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ABDUL GILL,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-03015 KJM AC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and in forma pauperis. This proceeding was
referred to this court by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21).
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the

20

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

21

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

22

§ 1915(e)(2).

23

The court’s prior order described the standard for finding a claim to be legally frivolous.

24

ECF No. 4 at 1-2. The order then dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the State defendants

25

without leave to amend, because under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he is

26

not allowed to sue the State of California, the California Health and Human Services Agency and

27

the California Department of Social Services. ECF No. 4 at 3. The court granted plaintiff leave

28

to amend his claims against Sacramento County. Id., at 4.
1

1

Plaintiff has now amended his complaint. ECF No. 5. The amended complaint, however,

2

does not indicate who the defendants are. The caption names the same State defendants that

3

plaintiff is not permitted to sue, and it no longer includes the County.

4

In addition, the complaint alleges no facts that show that plaintiff has suffered a legal

5

wrong, that he is entitled to any relief, or that this federal district court has jurisdiction to consider

6

his case. The complaint does allege that plaintiff’s medical benefits were terminated. It sets forth

7

the wrenching consequences of plaintiff’s inability to obtain desperately needed medical help.

8

However, this federal district court is powerless to compel the State or its agencies to comply

9

with State laws or regulations. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89

10

(1984). In a case such as this, the federal district court can provide relief only if the plaintiff has

11

suffered a legal wrong because a state official or municipal entity (or other “person” within the

12

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983), violated the federal Constitution or laws. See Frew ex rel. Frew v.

13

Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004) (“[t]o ensure the enforcement of federal law, . . . the Eleventh

14

Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in

15

violation of federal law”).

16

The complaint does not, for example, allege facts showing that the terminated medical

17

benefits were entitlements and that they were terminated by a state official (or a municipal entity

18

such as the County, or municipal official), without a hearing, or that the official otherwise

19

deprived plaintiff of the due process of law. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

20

(termination of State welfare benefits requires a pre-termination hearing in order to comply with

21

Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). With no such

22

factual allegations, the complaint must be dismissed.

23

The court will, however, again grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If

24

plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he must say why federal jurisdiction exists, that is, what

25

federal statute authorizes this court to consider this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Further, the

26

complaint must state who the defendants are. It is not sufficient to name defendants in the

27

caption, they must be named in the body of the complaint, in a separate section entitled “The

28

Parties” or “The Defendants.” The complaint must allege in specific terms the conduct the
2

1

defendants engaged in, and how that conduct violated his rights under the federal Constitution or

2

laws. Also, plaintiff may not name the State defendants from his original complaint, as those

3

defendants have been dismissed without leave to amend.

4

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

5

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. E.D. Cal. R. 220. An amended complaint must be

6

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an

7

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

8

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any

9

function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim

10

and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

11

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

12

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

13

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

DATED: February 17, 2015

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3