Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL T. CAREY, et al., No. CIV S-06-1265-FCD-CMK

Plaintiffs, 

vs. ORDER

SHASTA COUNTY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiffs bring this civil action, invoking the court’s federal question jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. 1), filed on June

9, 2006. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

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

The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening provisions, the

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must dismiss an action

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

“[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter . . . .” Because

plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court will also consider as a threshold

matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

In their pro se complaint, plaintiffs name as the only defendant Shasta County. 

Plaintiffs invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs

allege that the Shasta County Recorder – Cris Andrews – falsified the public record, thereby

causing them injury. They state that they presented a claim for $25,000,000.00 in damages to

the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, but that the claim was not paid. Plaintiffs seek to have

this court oversee a “. . . peaceful, judicial foreclosure and final settlement” of their damages

claim. 

As to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs state that the action

proceeds under the court’s federal question jurisdiction, there is nothing in the complaint to

suggest a violation of any federal law or of plaintiffs’ rights under the federal constitution. 

Nowhere in the complaint do plaintiffs cite to a federal statute or constitutional provision. 

Rather, the complaint references alleged fraud and potential violations of state law. Thus, it does

not appear that federal question jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs will, however, be given an

opportunity to amend the complaint to allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. 

The complaint is also deficient with respect to asserting liability against the only

named defendant which is a municipal entity. A local government unit, such as a county, may

not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials under a respondeat superior

theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Thus,

municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of the actions of its

employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the plaintiff must allege

that the violations complained of resulted from a policy or custom of the municipality. See id. 

A claim of municipal liability is sufficient to withstand dismissal even if it is based on nothing

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

more than bare allegations that an individual defendant’s conduct conformed to official policy,

custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir.

1988). In this case, the plaintiffs have not alleged any policy or custom of Shasta County. 

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiffs are entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiffs are

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

plaintiffs amend the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiffs’ amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

Finally, plaintiffs are warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on June 9, 2006, is dismissed with leave to

amend; and

2. Plaintiffs shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: June 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01265-FCD-CMK Document 5 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 3