Smith v. Stockton Social Security Office et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/2/17 ORDERING that the complaint filed 2/15/2017 (ECF No. 1 ) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; Within twenty-eight days an amended complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice; 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

TERESA Y. SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0329 KJM DB PS

v.

ORDER

STOCKTON SOCIAL SECURITY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, Teresa Smith, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

17
18

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 appears to complain about an incident

21

involving the Stockton Police Department.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

I.

27
28

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
2

1

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

2

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

3

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.

4
5
6

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

7

II.

8

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

9

that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her oldest son

10

“was attacked by 5 cops” on November 21, 2014,” and that an “officer chp Lumsargis drawed

11

guns (sic) on [plaintiff] that same night.” 1 (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.) The complaint, however,

12

does not clearly allege a cause of action. And the only defendants named in the complaint are the

13

Stockton Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. (Id. at 1.)

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

“[A] municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs a

24

tortfeasor.” Board of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

25

However, a municipality may be liable under § 1983 where the municipality itself causes the

26

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

27
28

1

It appears plaintiff may have served as guardian ad litem in an action brought on behalf of
James Smith. See James Smith v. City of Stockton, No. 2:15-cv-2511 MCE AC.
3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)).

12

Moreover, the right to represent oneself pro se is personal to the plaintiff and does not

13

extend to other parties. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see also

14

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona

15

has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”) Thus, “a parent or guardian cannot

16

bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San

17

Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). 2

18
19

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.
III.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

2

This is not the first time plaintiff has been advised of these defects with respect to these
allegations. See Teresa Smith v. Stockton Police Department, et al., No. 2:16-cv-0493 KJM DB
PS.
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

1988)).

9

Here, the undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend

10

would be futile. Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted

11

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

12

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

13

in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

27

////

28

////
5

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The complaint filed February 15, 2017 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to

4

amend. 3

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. 4 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: May 2, 2017

12

/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

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.
4
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