1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESIREE PETERSON, No. 2:18-cv-836-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her 18 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 19 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 20 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 21 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 22 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 24 below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.2 25
26 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 27 2 Plaintiff has also filed requests for an extension of time to serve defendants (ECF Nos. 4 28 & 8). and for permission to electronically file documents with the court (ECF Nos. 6 & 9). 1 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 2 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 3 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 5 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 6 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 7 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 8 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 9 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 10 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 11 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 12 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 13 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 14 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 15 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 16 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 17 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 18 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 19 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 20 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint3 fails to state a claim and fails to comply with Rule 21 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it must be dismissed with leave to 22 amend. The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that this action arises out of the removal of 23 plaintiff’s children from her custody. ECF No. 7 at 7. But rather than provide “a short and plaint 24 Because plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, defendants do not 25 need to be served at this time. Plaintiff’s requests to file electronically are denied pursuant to 26 Local Rule 133(a), which provides that pro se parties, such as plaintiff, shall file and serve paper documents. 27 3 Plaintiff has submitted two amended complaints prior to screening. The court herein 28 screens the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. 1 statement of the” claims, the 39-page complaint consists almost exclusively of legal conclusions 2 that neither demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to relief nor provide fair notice to the fifteen 3 defendants of the claims asserted against them. Plaintiff alleges that Sacramento County Sheriff 4 Scott Jones “refused to discipline his Deputies and failed to investigate properly by refusing all 5 allegations and ignoring evidence.” Id. at 8. But she does not identify the incident that should 6 have been investigated or specify the evidence that was ignored. Nor does she explain how 7 Sheriff Jones’s conduct harmed her. She also claims defendants have conspired and colluded 8 with other parties to: serve a “fraudulent Unlawful Detainer;” implement a “Plan of action” for 9 the removal of her children; withhold resources from her “HOME AND EQUITY;” and to 10 “withhold all familial rights. Id. at 10-11. 11 Additionally, it appears plaintiff seeks to asserts claims on behalf of her minor child. See, 12 e.g., ECF No. 1 at 16 (alleging defendants “deprived minor plaintiff K of her freedom of 13 movement by the use of physical barriers, fraud, menace, deceit, And [sic] unreasonable 14 duress.”). But there is no indication from the record that Ms. Peterson is an attorney. Unless she 15 is an attorney she may not represent the interest of her minor child, and may not sign pleadings on 16 the minor child’s behalf. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very 17 pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record in the 18 attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 19 In addition, Local Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing herself without an 20 attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not delegate 21 that duty to any other individual. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). Accordingly, Ms. Meyer may not bring 22 claims on behalf of her child. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 877 (9th Cir.
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 DESIREE PETERSON, No. 2:18-cv-836-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her 18 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 19 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 20 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 21 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 22 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 24 below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.2 25
26 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 27 2 Plaintiff has also filed requests for an extension of time to serve defendants (ECF Nos. 4 28 & 8). and for permission to electronically file documents with the court (ECF Nos. 6 & 9). 1 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 2 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 3 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 5 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 6 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 7 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 8 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 9 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 10 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 11 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 12 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 13 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 14 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 15 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 16 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 17 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 18 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 19 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 20 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint3 fails to state a claim and fails to comply with Rule 21 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it must be dismissed with leave to 22 amend. The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that this action arises out of the removal of 23 plaintiff’s children from her custody. ECF No. 7 at 7. But rather than provide “a short and plaint 24 Because plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, defendants do not 25 need to be served at this time. Plaintiff’s requests to file electronically are denied pursuant to 26 Local Rule 133(a), which provides that pro se parties, such as plaintiff, shall file and serve paper documents. 27 3 Plaintiff has submitted two amended complaints prior to screening. The court herein 28 screens the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. 1 statement of the” claims, the 39-page complaint consists almost exclusively of legal conclusions 2 that neither demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to relief nor provide fair notice to the fifteen 3 defendants of the claims asserted against them. Plaintiff alleges that Sacramento County Sheriff 4 Scott Jones “refused to discipline his Deputies and failed to investigate properly by refusing all 5 allegations and ignoring evidence.” Id. at 8. But she does not identify the incident that should 6 have been investigated or specify the evidence that was ignored. Nor does she explain how 7 Sheriff Jones’s conduct harmed her. She also claims defendants have conspired and colluded 8 with other parties to: serve a “fraudulent Unlawful Detainer;” implement a “Plan of action” for 9 the removal of her children; withhold resources from her “HOME AND EQUITY;” and to 10 “withhold all familial rights. Id. at 10-11. 11 Additionally, it appears plaintiff seeks to asserts claims on behalf of her minor child. See, 12 e.g., ECF No. 1 at 16 (alleging defendants “deprived minor plaintiff K of her freedom of 13 movement by the use of physical barriers, fraud, menace, deceit, And [sic] unreasonable 14 duress.”). But there is no indication from the record that Ms. Peterson is an attorney. Unless she 15 is an attorney she may not represent the interest of her minor child, and may not sign pleadings on 16 the minor child’s behalf. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very 17 pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record in the 18 attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 19 In addition, Local Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing herself without an 20 attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not delegate 21 that duty to any other individual. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). Accordingly, Ms. Meyer may not bring 22 claims on behalf of her child. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 877 (9th Cir. 23 1997) (a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for another, and general power of 24 attorney does not give non-lawyer right to assert the personal constitutional claims of another). 25 For these reasons plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to 26 state a claim. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint 27 must allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant(s) and include sufficient facts in 28 support of that cognizable legal theory. Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the 1 amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify 2 a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. An amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s 3 claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 4 circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double- 5 spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of 6 California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings 7 to delineate each claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as 8 required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 9 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 10 make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 11 complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 12 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 13 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 14 Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 15 alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 16 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 17 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 18 comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 19 may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 20 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 22 2. Plaintiff’s requests to file electronically (ECF Nos. 6 & 9) are denied. 23 3. Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to complete service of process (ECF Nos. 4 24 & 8) are denied. 25 4. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided 26 herein. 27 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 28 complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 1 | be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 2 || accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 3 || DATED: February 19, 2020. ‘ tid, PDEA 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28