1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, No. 2:25-cv-3363 CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 LEANN LUNDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 4 I. SCREENING STANDARDS 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 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 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 when 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), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 19 1227. 20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 24 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 25 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 26 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 27 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 28 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 1 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 2 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 3 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 4 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 5 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 6 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 7 Plaintiff’s complaint, with exhibits, is 429 pages long. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Plaintiff names 8 61 defendants, including (but not limited to) prison officials at California State Prison-Los 9 Angeles County, the California Attorney General, President Trump, Governor Newsom, the Walt 10 Disney Corporation and former Presidents Obama and Biden. (ECF No. 1 at 2-21.) After 11 reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, this Court cannot determine what specific allegations plaintiff 12 makes against each separate defendant and the legal claims plaintiff raises against the defendants. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 This Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of 15 the claims, as required by Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s 16 complaint does not give defendants fair notice of the claims and grounds upon which they rest. 17 See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff’s claims are so vague and conclusory that this Court 18 cannot determine whether plaintiff states potentially colorable claims for relief. See Ivey v. 19 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations 20 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient). 21 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint 22 shall be no longer than 25 pages in length including exhibits and shall contain a short and 23 plain statement of any claim for relief as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s failure to 24 comply with the provisions of this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this 25 action. 26 IV.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, No. 2:25-cv-3363 CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 LEANN LUNDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 4 I. SCREENING STANDARDS 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 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 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 when 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), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 19 1227. 20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 24 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 25 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 26 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 27 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 28 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 1 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 2 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 3 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 4 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 5 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 6 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 7 Plaintiff’s complaint, with exhibits, is 429 pages long. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Plaintiff names 8 61 defendants, including (but not limited to) prison officials at California State Prison-Los 9 Angeles County, the California Attorney General, President Trump, Governor Newsom, the Walt 10 Disney Corporation and former Presidents Obama and Biden. (ECF No. 1 at 2-21.) After 11 reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, this Court cannot determine what specific allegations plaintiff 12 makes against each separate defendant and the legal claims plaintiff raises against the defendants. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 This Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of 15 the claims, as required by Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s 16 complaint does not give defendants fair notice of the claims and grounds upon which they rest. 17 See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff’s claims are so vague and conclusory that this Court 18 cannot determine whether plaintiff states potentially colorable claims for relief. See Ivey v. 19 Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations 20 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient). 21 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint 22 shall be no longer than 25 pages in length including exhibits and shall contain a short and 23 plain statement of any claim for relief as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s failure to 24 comply with the provisions of this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this 25 action. 26 IV. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING AMENDED COMPLAINTS 27 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 28 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g., 1 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 2 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 3 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 4 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 5 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 6 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 7 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 8 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 9 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 10 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 11 v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 12 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 13 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 14 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 15 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 16 V. OTHER PLEADINGS 17 Plaintiff filed a pleading docketed as a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 4.) This 18 pleading is titled, “Motion to Vacate an Arbitrary and Capricious Adverse Transfer With 19 Addendum Complaint.” (Id.) It is not clear to this Court whether plaintiff intended this pleading 20 as an amended complaint. To the extent plaintiff intended this pleading to supplement the 21 original complaint, plaintiff is reminded that piecemeal amendment of complaints is not 22 permitted. See Local Rule 220. Because the relief sought in this pleading is not clear, no further 23 orders will be issued addressing this pleading. 24 Plaintiff filed a pleading docketed as “Motion for Three Judge Panel.” (ECF No. 5.) 25 Because the relief sought in this pleading is not clear, no further orders will be issued addressing 26 this pleading. 27 Plaintiff filed a pleading docketed as a declaration. (ECF No. 10.) This pleading is titled, 28 “Sovereign Motion for a Nation … Heterosexuals Re-affirming for Bastille Relief.” (Id. at 1.) 1 Because the relief sought in this pleading is not clear, no further orders will be issued addressing 2 this pleading. 3 VI. CONCLUSION 4 This Court observes that plaintiff is housed in California State Prison-Los Angeles 5 County. Los Angeles County is located within the Central District of California. Plaintiff’s 6 claims regarding conditions of confinement at California State Prison-Los Angeles County should 7 be raised in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of 8 California. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted. 11 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 12 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 14 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 15 herewith. 16 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 17 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 18 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 19 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 20 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 21 Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 23 also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 24 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 25 this action. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 5. No further orders will be issued addressing the pleadings docketed as First Amended 2 || Complaint (ECF No. 4), Motion for Three Judge Panel (ECF No. 5) and Declaration (ECF No. 3 || No. 10). 4 5 || Dated: April 28, 2026 □□□ Spo | CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 Dun3363.14/2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, No. 2:25-cv-3363 CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 14 LEANN LUNDY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 19 filed on ______________ (date). 20 21 Amended Complaint 22 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint) 23 DATED: ________________________________ 24 Plaintiff 25 26 27 28