Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02049/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02049-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MUHAMMAD, No. CIV.S-06-2049 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff Charles Muhammad, proceeding in this action pro

se, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by

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

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that 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

Case 2:06-cv-02049-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 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

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. 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

1984). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so

vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the

Case 2:06-cv-02049-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 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

current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short

and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet these requirements. 

The one-page complaint names ten United States Senators as

defendants. No facts are alleged other than the brief and conclusory

assertions that defendants violated plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth

and Eight Amendment rights. The complaint lacks sufficient detail

for the court to decipher the intended crux of this action. The

matter is further confused by the caption of the complaint, which

refers to the nations of Argentina, Guyana, Bolivia and Ecuador as

additional plaintiffs. Of course, a pro se plaintiff is not able to

represent those countries in this action. See Johns v. County of San

Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) ("While a non-attorney may

appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an

attorney for others than himself.") For these reasons, the court

finds that the complaint’s vague allegations do not amount to a short

and plain statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to

relief or set forth any factual allegations giving rise to federal

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2).

Case 2:06-cv-02049-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 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

Additionally, while there are no allegations of any

specific acts purportedly undertaken by the various defendants, the

court notes that legislative immunity shields legislators from having

to defend against lawsuits based on the conduct of legitimate

legislative activity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union

of the United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 731-732 (1980). 

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court will grant leave to file an

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he

must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear and

concise factual allegations describing the events which underlie

plaintiff’s claims.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. 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). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

initial complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. Any amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary

factual description will likely be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02049-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 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

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Charles Muhammad’s request for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. Plaintiff must

file an original and two copies of the amended complaint.

DATED: December 19, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\muhammad2049.ifp.lta

Case 2:06-cv-02049-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 5