(PC) Woodruff v. The White House et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/03/2024 DIRECTING Plaintiff to File an IFP or pay the $405 Filing Fee within 30 days and DISMISSING 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Amended Complaint due within 30 days from the date of service of this order. (Murphy, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EARNEST TOMBOURA WOODRUFF,

12

No. 2:24-cv-00280-CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

THE WHITE HOUSE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the

19

required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $55.00 administrative fee. 1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),

20

1915(a). Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity either to submit the appropriate affidavit in

21

support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the required fees totaling $405.00.

22

The revised in forma pauperis application form includes a section that must be completed

23

by a prison official, which must be accompanied by a certified copy of the prisoner’s prison trust

24

account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this action.

25

However, this section is for non-CDCR incarcerated prisoners only. Because plaintiff is housed

26
27
28

1

If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee
but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not
required to pay the $55.00 administrative fee.
1

1

in CDCR custody, the CDCR will email plaintiff’s certified financial information directly to the

2

court. But plaintiff must still provide a signed and dated application to proceed in forma

3

pauperis.

4

I.

5

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

Screening Requirement

6

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

7

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

8

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

9

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

15

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

16

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

17

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

18

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

19

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

20

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

21

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

22

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp.

23

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

24

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

25

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

26

II.

27

Plaintiff alleges that several state and federal agencies are engaged in a criminal enterprise

28

Allegations in the Complaint

which includes mail fraud, forgery, murder for hire, embezzlement, hate crimes, money
2

1

laundering, and computer hacking. By way of relief, plaintiff seeks an investigation to be

2

conducted by the United States Marshal’s Service and to be placed in their witness protection

3

program.

4

III.

Analysis

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim.

12

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

13

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

14

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

15

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

16

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

17

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

18

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

19

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

20

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

21

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of

22

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
3

1

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

2

IV.

3

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not

4
5

Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

intended as legal advice.
The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not

6

state any claim against the defendants. Your complaint is being dismissed, but you are being

7

given the chance to file an amended complaint. If you wish to pursue this case, you also need to

8

pay the filing fee or complete the enclosed application to proceed in forma pauperis and return it

9

to the court.

10

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

11

1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an application to

12

proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the required fees in the

13

amount of $405.00.

14
15

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.

16

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

17

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

18

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

19

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

20

number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

21

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

22

action be dismissed.

23

Dated: June 3, 2024
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27

12/wood0280.3a.new+14.new

28
4