Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00327/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00327-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

KENNETH WAYNE FICK, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-327 REC/SMS

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF

FRESNO'S MOTION TO DISMISS,

VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET

FOR OCTOBER 3, 2005,

DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING

CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

ALL DEFENDANTS 

By Order filed on August 4, 2005, the court directed

plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. In so doing, the

court noted that the Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff

pursuant to Magistrate Judge Snyder's Order did not comply with

the substance of Magistrate Judge Snyder's Order. This court

ruled:

The Second Amended Complaint must contain a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court’s subject matter jurisdiction

depends, a short and plain statement of the

claim(s) showing that plaintiff is entitled

to relief, and a demand for judgment for the

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 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

relief sought by the plaintiff. Each

defendant must be named in the caption and

the body of the Second Amended Second

Complaint. Plaintiff must allege with some

degree of particularity the overt acts which

each defendant engaged in that support

plaintiff’s claim(s) against that defendant. 

Plaintiff is informed that he cannot refer to

the prior Complaint or Amended Complaint. 

Local Rule 15-220, Local Rules of Practice,

requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any

prior pleading.

The County of Fresno moves to dismiss this action on the

ground that the Second Amended Complaint is no more intelligible

than the Amended Complaint and does not comply with the

requirements to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

against any of the defendants named in this action. No timely

opposition to this motion to dismiss has been filed by plaintiff.

The court has reviewed the record and concurs with the

County of Fresno that the Second Amended Complaint does not

comply with the August 4 Order and does not state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has been given two

opportunities to amend his pleading to state a claim and twice

has been advised of the appropriate pleading requirements. 

Therefore, the court concludes that plaintiff is unable to plead

causes of action against each of the defendants named in his

complaint within this court's subject matter jurisdiction and

which will state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There

is no further purpose in conducting oral argument on the County

of Fresno's motion to dismiss under these circumstances,

especially since plaintiff has not filed a written opposition as

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 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

required by the Local Rules of Practice.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The County of Fresno's motion to dismiss is granted.

2. Oral argument set for October 3, 2005 is vacated.

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice against all

defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

668554Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 25 Filed 09/26/05 Page 3 of 3