Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00501-0/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

CLEVAND WALLCE; RITA WALLACE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, etc.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0501 TLN DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiffs Cleveland Wallace and Rita Wallace are proceeding in this action pro se. This 

matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Pending before the court are plaintiffs’ complaint and motions to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1-3.) Therein, plaintiffs complain about a 

conspiracy involving defendants’ property management company and several police departments. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiffs’ complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

below, plaintiffs’ complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 7
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

I. Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action 

in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $50.00 general administrative fee for 

civil cases must be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement of an 

action “without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit” showing that she is 

unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Plaintiff Cleveland Wallace’s March 5, 2020 in forma pauperis application reflects that 

plaintiff receives $2,544 a month in income and has only $1,552 in monthly debts. (ECF No. 3 at 

1-2.) In light of plaintiff’s stated financial situation, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed

to show that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fees. Thus, plaintiff has made an inadequate 

showing of indigency. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Requiring 

the payment of fees according to a plaintiff’s ability to pay serves the dual aims of defraying 

some of the judicial costs of litigation and screening out frivolous claims.”). Although plaintiff 

Rita Wallace’s application does make the necessary showing, filing fees must be paid unless each 

plaintiff applies for and is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Moreover, even a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis 

status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that 

the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see

also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the 

district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed IFP because it 

appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous or without 

merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court 

to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the 

proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 

bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 7
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

The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is 

found to be untrue or if it is determined that 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. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis 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 must dismiss a complaint as frivolous 

where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 

clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

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

II. Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Review of plaintiffs’ complaint finds that it fails to contain a short and plain statement of 

a claim showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief. 

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 7
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

A. Rule 8

Plaintiffs’ complaint is full of vague and conclusory allegations. For example, the 

complaint alleges that plaintiffs “are threaten and terrorized by stalkers following plaintiffs 

everywhere.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 8.) That plaintiffs “are chased, assaulted, slandered and 

nuisance per se . . . are causing distress in plaintiffs’ lives.” (Id.) And that plaintiffs are subject 

to “constant break-ins, sabotage of plaintiffs’ food which cause illness, theft and destruction of 

plaintiffs’ property.” (Id.) The complaint, however, does not articulate how any defendant 

engaged in this alleged wrongful conduct, assert a claim against a named defendant, or state the 

element of a claim plainly and succinctly.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

B. Conspiracy 

The complaint alleges in a vague and conclusory manner that the defendants have engaged 

in a “‘Hub and Spoke’ conspiracy.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 10.) The conspiracy seeks to 

“destroy plaintiffs’ health, finances and social well being; by unlawful acts of burglary, maladies, 

stalking, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, conversion, sabotage of 

property, invasion of privacy and nuisance per se.” (Id. at 6.) 

Plaintiffs are advised that “[l]iability for civil conspiracy generally requires three 

elements: (1) formation of a conspiracy (an agreement to commit wrongful acts); (2) operation of 

a conspiracy (commission of the wrongful acts); and (3) damage resulting from operation of a 

conspiracy.” Davenport v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 725 F.Supp.2d 862, 881 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 7
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

“[B]are assertion of conspiracy” and a “conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified 

point” will not suffice to state a cognizable claim under federal pleading standards. Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556–57; Davenport, 725 F.Supp.2d at 881 (plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that 

defendants “agreed to hoodwink her with an unconscionable loan” did not state a cognizable 

conspiracy cause of action).

C. Failure to Investigate

The complaint alleges that the Williams Police Department, Colusa Sheriff’s Department,

Woodland Police Department, and Sacramento Police Department failed to respond to or 

investigate plaintiffs’ multiple reports of unlawful acts. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 9-12.) However, 

“[t]he police have no affirmative obligation to investigate a crime in a particular way or to protect 

one citizen from another even when one citizen deprives the other of liberty of property.” Gini v. 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994).

D. Under Color of State Law

The complaint alleges that defendant Buckingham Property Management violated 

plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) However, a litigant who complains 

of a violation of a constitutional right does not have a cause of action directly under the United 

States Constitution. Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994) (affirming that it is 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 that provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation of rights secured by the 

United States Constitution); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979) 

(explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was enacted to create a private cause of action for violations of 

the United States Constitution); Azul-Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Plaintiff has no cause of action directly under the United States Constitution.”).

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that,

[e]very person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit 

in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

The allegations found in the complaint, however, fail to allege how Buckingham Property 

Management acted under color of state law. Instead, it appears that Buckingham Property 

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Management is simply a private corporation. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 9.) “‘§ 1983 excludes from 

its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrong.’” Sutton v. Providence 

St. Joseph Medical Center, 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. 

Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, (1999)). 

III. Leave to Amend

Because plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted the 

amended complaint must be dismissed. The undersigned has carefully considered whether 

plaintiffs may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid 

reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” 

California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 

1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 

(9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have 

to allow futile amendments). 

However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff 

may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 

in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 

1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)); see also Weilburg v. 

Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 

amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 

1988)).

Here, given the vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations, the 

undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiffs will be granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that if plaintiffs elect to file an amended 

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint 

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While 

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 7
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

7

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual 

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from 

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiffs are also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede 

the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended 

complaint, just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in 

the caption and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of 

each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiffs may elect

to file must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and 

events which underlie plaintiffs’ claims.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The complaint filed March 5, 2020 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 

amend.

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed that 

cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Local Rules of Practice.1 The amended complaint must bear the case number assigned to this 

action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: April 29, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Alternatively, if plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue this action plaintiffs may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:20-cv-00501-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 7