Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01718/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01718-0/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MADIHA MINER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

PROSECUTORS OF WASHINGTON 

STATE, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1718-MCE-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1

 Her 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must 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. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.2

 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). 

2

 Plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 3. Because the first amended 

Case 2:19-cv-01718-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

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

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[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). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 Plaintiff brings this action against then King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, 

located in Seattle Washington. ECF No. 6. The first amended complaint3

, which consists of a 

single paragraph, alleges that defendant has violated plaintiff’s right to privacy and subjected her 

to discrimination and harassment. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant has withheld her 

mail and her family member’ birth certificates and “death certificates for their Native American 

Benefits including ID for memberships.” Id. She also claims that she has expressed her right to 

 

complaint must be dismissed, that motion is moot. 

3

 Plaintiff amended her complaint as a matter of course before the court had an 

opportunity to screen the original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). 

Case 2:19-cv-01718-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

be free from discrimination under the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the 

United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give 

fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. 

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. The 

allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff seeks. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of 

Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that 

defendant has withheld certain documents fails to provide defendant with sufficient notice of the 

factual basis of her claims. 

Plaintiff’s reference to the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments suggests that she 

is attempting to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim for violation of a 

constitutional right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

A municipal entity or its departments (such as a county or a county employee acting in an 

official capacity) is liable under section 1983 only if plaintiff shows that his constitutional injury 

was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom. Mt. Healthy 

City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); Monell v. New York City Dep’t of 

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 

(9th Cir. 2008). In addition, such local government entities may not be held vicariously liable 

under section 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat 

Case 2:19-cv-01718-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 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 

27 

28 

4 

superior. See Board of Cty. Comm’rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). That is, a plaintiff 

may not sue any defendant on the theory that the defendant is automatically liable for the alleged 

misconduct of subordinate officers. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Plaintiff not 

only fails to allege facts demonstrating a violation of her constitutional rights, she also fails to 

allege that her rights were violated pursuant to a policy or custom. Accordingly, she fails to state 

a claim under § 1983. 

 The amended complaint’s allegations are also insufficient to state a claim under the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. In addition to failing to identify the specific provision defendant allegedly 

violated, plaintiff fails to allege any facts demonstrating that she was subjected to discrimination 

on account of race, color, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d and 2000e-2. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. An amended complaint 

allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. 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, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify a basis for this 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in 

“numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper 

that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local 

Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each 

claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 

10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 

Case 2:19-cv-01718-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 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 

27 

28 

5 

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). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided 

herein. 

 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 “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 

3) be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 18, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01718-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 5