Hoeft v. Ballon

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/5/17: Plaintiff's motion 11 is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to change the nature of suit code to a civil rights action and assign a District Judge to this action. The scheduling order 5 is vacated. 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICA HOEFT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2615 CKD PS

v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This action was

18
19

initially opened as a social security action. Plaintiff has requested that the case be redesignated

20

because she contends that this is a civil rights action. The case will therefore be redesignated.
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the

21
22

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

23

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

24

§ 1915(e)(2).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

/////
1

1

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

2

490 U.S. at 327.

3

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

4

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

5

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

6

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

7

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

8

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

9

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

10

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

11

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

12

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007),

13

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

14

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

15

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

16

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

17

court has determined that the 131 page complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

complaint.

25

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

26

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

27

Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation

28

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

1

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

2

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

3
4
5

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

6

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

7

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

8

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

9

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

10

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

11

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

18

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

19

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

20

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

alleged.

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

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

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 11) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to change

3

the nature of suit code to a civil rights action and assign a District Judge to this action;

4

2. The scheduling order (ECF No. 5) is vacated;

5

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the

10

amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

11

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

12

Dated: January 5, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15

4 hoeft2615.ifp-lta

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4