Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01245/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01245-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

ROGER D. ROMERO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1245 DFL JFM PS

vs.

RODNEY KIRKLAND and

JUNE KUNTZ,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Presently calendared for hearing on September 8, 2005 is defendants’ August 4,

2005 motion to dismiss or for more definite statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the

court has determined that the matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. 

Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, and good cause

appearing therefor, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of

the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and

resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied,

396 U.S. 869 (1969). Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 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

 For example, suit against individual state officers in their official capacities is barred by 1

the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits

brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to

such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)(per

curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982).

2

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no

set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & 

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

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 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).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants are State of California employees, acting under

color of state law, who have control over his paychecks and who have “arbitrarily and

substantially reduced the amount of plaintiff’s routine paychecks without his permission” 

(Complaint at 2), and without due process of law. Plaintiff sues defendants in their individual

capacities and seeks monetary damages. In his opposition to the motion, plaintiff contends that

“why defendants reduced plaintiff’s pay, and whether or not it was justified or legal, are actually

defenses, not issues for plaintiff to allege in the complaint.” (Opp’n at 1-2.)

However, plaintiff is incorrect. 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. In addition, plaintiff must provide sufficient information for the

court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

1

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 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

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so vague and conclusory

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

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 original

pleading 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.

II. Motion for More Definite Statement

Motions for more definite statement are governed by Rule 12(e). “Rule 12(e) is

designed to strike at unintelligibility, rather than want of detail.” Woods v. Reno Commodities,

Inc., 600 F.Supp. 574, 580 (D.Nev. 1984); Nelson v. Quimby Island Reclamation Dist., 491

F.Supp. 1364, 1385 (N.D. Cal. 1980). Rule 12(e) permits a party to move for a more definite

statement “[i]f a pleading is so vague that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a

responsive pleading.” 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 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

 The Martin court affirmed the district court’s denial of Martin’s civil rights complaint 2

brought against two IRS agents, his employer and another employee for lack of subject matter

4

The United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized intentional

deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural

requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

Thus, where the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional

deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 

Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of

Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that the

deprivation was authorized. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants “arbitrarily” reduced his

paychecks without his permission. The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort

claims against public officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. Since plaintiff

has not attempted to seek redress in the state system, he cannot sue in federal court on the claim

that the state deprived him of property without due process of the law. To the extent plaintiff is

seeking to litigate an unauthorized, intentional deprivation of his property, that claim must be

dismissed as legally frivolous. Plaintiff should omit that claim from any amended complaint

filed pursuant to this order.

Finally, defendants state they believe plaintiff is suing defendants because he

objects to the withholding of taxes directed to be withheld by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

and the Franchise Tax Board. (Defts.’ Motion at 3.) Plaintiff does not address nor dispute this in

his opposition. Plaintiff is advised that an employer or employee may not be held liable for

complying with the IRS's instructions to withhold taxes from an employee’s paycheck. Martin v.

Scott, 37 Fed.Appx. 878 (9th Cir. 2002) (see Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 2

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 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 jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Id..

5

770 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that an employer is not liable to employee for complying with legal

duty to withhold taxes). 

Upon review of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), the court finds that the

motion for more definite statement should be granted. If plaintiff chooses to proceed with his

claims, the amended complaint should set forth the facts supporting each claim separately,

including the specific nature of the deprivation, and should clearly identify the defendants against

which the claims are made, explaining how they “control” plaintiff’s “routine pay,” and how said

actions demonstrate a constitutional violation.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of September 8, 2005 on defendants’ motion to dismiss is

vacated.

2. Defendants’ August 4, 2005 motion is granted.

3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

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

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint 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; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: August 25, 2005. 

/001; romero.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01245-DFL -JFM Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 Page 5 of 5