1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARY J. CRAGO, No. 2:19-cv-02509 MCE AC (PS) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SACRAMENTO SHERIFF, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 26 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 28 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 1 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 2 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 3 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 4 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 5 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 7 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 8 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 13 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 14 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 15 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 22 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 23 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 24 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 26 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 27 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 28 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 1 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 2 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 3 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 4 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 5 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 6 A. The Complaint 7 Plaintiff brings suit against the Sacramento Sheriff’s department of Internal Affairs. ECF 8 No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff checks the box on the form complaint indicating that the basis for federal 9 jurisdiction is federal question. Id. at 2. When asked to list the specific federal laws at issue, 10 plaintiff writes “failure to respond to citizens complaint, illegal search and seizure, no probable 11 cause.” Id. The body of plaintiff’s complaint, however, addresses only an alleged failure to 12 respond and not any illegal search and seizure without probable cause. Id. at 8-10. Plaintiff 13 alleges that she filed a complaint with internal affairs on December 8, 2019, and that she has not 14 received a call back, and there has been no investigation. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed this complaint 15 on December 16, 2019. Id. 16 B. Analysis 17 The court must reject plaintiff’s complaint because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 8 and it fails to state a basis for jurisdiction. The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” 19 statement setting forth the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the 20 relief that is sought, even though those things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). First, 21 even though plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction and states she is alleging a claim that 22 her constitutional rights were violated, she does not allege any facts related to that claim. The 23 factual allegations of the complaint relate only to the alleged failure of the Sheriff’s internal 24 affairs department’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Such a claim does not support 25 federal question jurisdiction because it is unrelated to the violation of any federal law or 26 constitutional right. 27 Second, the exact nature of what happened to plaintiff is unclear from the complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARY J. CRAGO, No. 2:19-cv-02509 MCE AC (PS) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SACRAMENTO SHERIFF, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 26 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 28 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 1 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 2 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 3 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 4 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 5 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 7 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 8 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 13 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 14 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 15 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 22 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 23 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 24 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 26 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 27 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 28 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 1 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 2 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 3 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 4 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 5 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 6 A. The Complaint 7 Plaintiff brings suit against the Sacramento Sheriff’s department of Internal Affairs. ECF 8 No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff checks the box on the form complaint indicating that the basis for federal 9 jurisdiction is federal question. Id. at 2. When asked to list the specific federal laws at issue, 10 plaintiff writes “failure to respond to citizens complaint, illegal search and seizure, no probable 11 cause.” Id. The body of plaintiff’s complaint, however, addresses only an alleged failure to 12 respond and not any illegal search and seizure without probable cause. Id. at 8-10. Plaintiff 13 alleges that she filed a complaint with internal affairs on December 8, 2019, and that she has not 14 received a call back, and there has been no investigation. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed this complaint 15 on December 16, 2019. Id. 16 B. Analysis 17 The court must reject plaintiff’s complaint because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 8 and it fails to state a basis for jurisdiction. The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” 19 statement setting forth the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the 20 relief that is sought, even though those things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). First, 21 even though plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction and states she is alleging a claim that 22 her constitutional rights were violated, she does not allege any facts related to that claim. The 23 factual allegations of the complaint relate only to the alleged failure of the Sheriff’s internal 24 affairs department’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. Such a claim does not support 25 federal question jurisdiction because it is unrelated to the violation of any federal law or 26 constitutional right. 27 Second, the exact nature of what happened to plaintiff is unclear from the complaint. The 28 complaint contains few facts, and states only that the Sherriff’s department failed to respond 1 within the single week between plaintiff’s filing an internal affairs complaint and her filing this 2 case in federal court. The court cannot tell from examining the complaint and the minimal facts 3 alleged what constitutional violation (if any) was inflicted on the plaintiff, by whom and when, or 4 how any alleged harm amounts to a claim that would give rise to federal jurisdiction in this case. 5 Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this court’s jurisdiction and does not 6 comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather than recommending dismissal of the 7 action, the undersigned will provide plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to allege a 8 proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable federal cause of action. 9 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 10 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 11 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 12 statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 13 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 14 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 15 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 16 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 17 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 18 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 19 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 20 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 21 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 22 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 23 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 24 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 25 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 26 what.” Id. at 1179. 27 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 28 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 1 | reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 2 || complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 3 || Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (‘[nJormally, an amended complaint 4 || supersedes the original complaint’) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 5 || Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 6 | original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 7 | alleged. 8 II. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 9 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 10 || complaint what legal harm was done to you that would give this court jurisdiction over your case. 11 || Because the complaint as written does not allege a federal cause of action, it will not be served on 12 | defendant. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 13 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis 14 | for federal jurisdiction. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms 15 || what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations 16 || impacted you. Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to 17 | bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the 18 || undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 22 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 23 names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 24 given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 25 recommend that this action be dismissed. 26 || DATED: December 30, 2019 7 /
27 ALLISON CLAIRE 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE