Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02496/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

DONALD CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2496 LEW EFB PS

vs.

MR. PARSON, MR. GLEASON, and ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK,

Defendants. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to

prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time

if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. 

Case 2:07-cv-02496-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a pro so plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will

not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level

on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). 

perspicacious

Upon review of the complaint, the court has determined that it fails to comply with Rule

8(a)(2), as it does not contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. It also

fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(1), as it does not include the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

rests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases

authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction

requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a

“case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be

authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal

jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction

Case 2:07-cv-02496-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 5
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

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, plaintiff does not allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. Rather, he has filed a

form entitled “Instructions for Attorneys Completing Civil Cover Sheet Form JS 44,” on which

he has checked boxes indicating that jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but also

because the United States is the plaintiff. See Compl., at 2. The remainder of the complaint

consists of a form for pleading a claim of wrongful discharge based on breach of an employment

contract. Plaintiff has filled in some of the blanks, and to the extent it is legible, it appears that

he is asserting a state law claim for breach of contract. He alleges that a business called “We

Hall Pacific Pipe” entered into an oral employment contract with him for the position of spot

welder. Compl., at 3. Plaintiff alleges that his employer engaged in “wrongful default

complaint” and asserts this was a violation of California law. Id. 

To the extent plaintiff means to state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public

policy, “[i]t is state, not federal, law that creates [that] cause of action. . . .” Rains v. Criterion

Sys., 80 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not allege a claim under Title VII, nor does

he otherwise state a claim under federal law. Further, it is unclear from the caption and body of

the complaint which defendants plaintiff means to sue. He identifies in the caption a “Mr.

Pearson” and a “Mr. Gleason” but does not provide further identifying information for purposes

of service of process, nor does he otherwise link these individuals to any allegations in the

complaint. Similarly, it appears that plaintiff has named “Wells Fargo Bank” in the caption, but

he fails to state a claim against this entity in the body of the complaint. Finally, plaintiff names

“We Hall Pacific Pipe” in the body of the complaint, but has not identified this entity as a

defendant in the caption. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02496-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Because the court is unable to determine either a basis for this court’s jurisdiction or the

causes of action plaintiff means to allege against each defendant, the court must dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. However, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and corrects the deficiencies addressed herein. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro

se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should

plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he shall identify each defendant in both the

caption and the body of the amended complaint, and clearly set forth the allegations against each

such defendant. He shall also specify a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is further informed that, should he file an amended complaint, the court cannot

refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves

any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the

original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint

are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and,

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02496-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 04/07/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

DATED: April 7, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 04/07/08 Page 5 of 5