Beirge v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/10/17 ORDERING that the complaint filed October 20, 2016 1 is DISMISSED with LEAVE to AMEND; Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed tha t cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled "Amended Complaint." Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEERTESE BEIRGE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2505 JAM DB PS

v.

ORDER

THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, Leertese Beirge, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to

17
18

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

19

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about an unlawful arrest.

21

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

22

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.

23

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated

24

below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

25

I.

26

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma

28

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny
1

1

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed

2

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d

3

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th

4

Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th

5

Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed

6

IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous

7

or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the

8

District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

2

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.

3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

6

II.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

7

Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing

8

that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the “Sacramento

9

Police Department” unlawfully arrested plaintiff, that “[t]hey assaulted [plaintiff] along with

10

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department within Sacramento County Main Jail,” and that “[t]hey

11

stole [plaintiff’s] private property and extorted [plaintiff] to get it back . . . .” (Compl. (ECF No.

12

1) at 5.)

13

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, does not allege any facts—such as the dates of the events

14

at issue and the identities of those involved—that underlie the complaint’s allegations. In this

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him or her and the claimed constitutional

27

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

28

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979).
3

1

A municipality may be liable under § 1983 where the municipality itself causes the

2

constitutional violation through a “policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or those

3

whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy[.]” Monell v. Department of

4

Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Municipal liability in a § 1983 case may be premised

5

upon: (1) an official policy; (2) a “longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard

6

operating procedure of the local government entity;” (3) the act of an “official whose acts fairly

7

represent official policy such that the challenged action constituted official policy;” or (4) where

8

“an official with final policy-making authority delegated that authority to, or ratified the decision

9

of, a subordinate.” Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008). To sufficiently plead a

10

Monell claim, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action,

11

but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the

12

opposing party to defend itself effectively.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d

13

631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

14
15

claim.1

16

III.

17

Leave to Amend
The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to

18

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend

19

include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v.

20

Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n

21

v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On November 10, 2016, plaintiff filed a document pertaining to a Sacramento County Superior
Court action. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff is advised that the Younger abstention doctrine forbids
federal courts from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or
declaratory relief, absent extraordinary circumstances that create a threat of irreparable injury.
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th
Cir. 1992). Moreover, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court is precluded
from hearing “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court
review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
4

1

amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments).

2

However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff

3

may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

4

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

5

1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972); see also Weilburg v.

6

Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to

7

amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

8

cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir.

9

1988)).

10

Here, given the vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations, the

11

undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.
5

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The complaint filed October 20, 2016 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to

4

amend.2

5

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

6

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

7

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.3 The amended complaint must bear the case number

8

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

9

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

10

that this action be dismissed.

11

Dated: April 10, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/beirge2505.dism.lta.ord

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless
plaintiff’s financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted.
3
Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6