Blackshire v. Napa State Hospital

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/28/2015 ORDERING that the 1 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK BLACKSHIRE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:15-cv-1124 KJM DAD PS

ORDER

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Patrick Blackshire is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to

18

the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff

19

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

20

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis

22

status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to

23

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

24

the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th

25

Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See

26

also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to

27

examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the

28

proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
1

1

bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).

2

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of

3

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

4

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

5

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an

6

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.

7

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a

8

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the

9

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

10

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to

11

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

12

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as

13

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most

14

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.

15

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245

16

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

17

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true

18

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western

19

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

20
21
22
23
24
25

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).
Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

26

which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of a claim showing that

27

plaintiff is entitled to relief, or a demand for judgment for the relief plaintiff seeks. In this regard,

28

plaintiff’s complaint appears to be a one-page complaint form, similar to those provided by courts
2

1

to prospective plaintiffs as a guide for drafting a complaint. Although the document identifies

2

Napa State Hospital as a defendant, the document does not contain any factual allegations, causes

3

of actions or a demand for relief.

4

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a

5

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that

6

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.

7

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels

8

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor

9

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual

10

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,

11

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

12

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

13

Moreover, jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any

14

case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of

15

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited

16

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v.

17

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37

18

(1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears

19

affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting

20

Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

21

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the

22

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.

23

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has

24

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the

25

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v.

26

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court

27

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

28

/////
3

1

The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting

2

jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974)

3

(acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial,

4

implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy

5

within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)

6

(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly

7

insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of

8

jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even

9

“[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction

10
11

. . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”).
Accordingly, in light of the deficiencies noted above, plaintiff’s complaint will be

12

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. The undersigned has carefully considered

13

whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

14

“Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.”

15

California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988).

16

See also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th

17

Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to

18

allow futile amendments). However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint

19

of a pro se plaintiff may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

20

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v.

21

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521

22

(1972). See also Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro

23

se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of

24

the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d

25

1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

26

Here, the court cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be

27

futile. Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file

28

an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he elects to file an amended
4

1

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint

2

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

3

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While

4

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual

5

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from

6

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

7

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an

8

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete

9

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original

10

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint,

11

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption

12

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each

13

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file

14

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events

15

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. The complaint filed May 26, 2015 (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend.1

18

2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be

19

filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number

21

assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless his
financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted.
2

Alternatively, if he does not wish to pursue this action any longer plaintiff may file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5

1

3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation

2

that this action be dismissed.

3

Dated: September 28, 2015

4
5
6
7
8

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\blackshire1124.dism.lta.ord.docx

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6