Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CLEARLAKE POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-03365 EDL

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND

DEFERRING RULING ON IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Plaintiffs filed this action on June 8, 2007 in the Eastern District of California. On June 15,

2007, Judge Mueller in the Eastern District ordered that the case be transferred to this district. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to allege civil rights violations against police officers in the Clearlake

Police Department. Plaintiffs have also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint does not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a),

which requires that a complaint 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.” Rule

8(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further requires that “each averment of a pleading shall

be simple, concise, and direct.” The purpose of these requirements is to “give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 

Specifically, in this case, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any factual basis for their

complaint, thereby preventing Defendant from determining the grounds for the complaint or

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 4 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiffs have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendant has not been served; however, the Court does not require the consent

of Defendant in order to dismiss this action because Defendant has not been served and therefore is not

a party within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. De Frantz, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

11640, *3, n.2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2000) (citing Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995)

(magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prisoner’s civil rights action without consent of the

defendants because the defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties)). 

2

formulating a response. While Plaintiffs need only provide a “short and plain statement” and need

not go into detail, the allegations must put Defendants on notice of the basis for the action. See

Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that “. . . pleadings

nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is

that it allegedly did wrong.”). For example, Plaintiffs allege that “Clearlake Police Department

officers used excessive force when falsely detaining David Davis in violation of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” (Compl. ¶ 8), yet there are no factual

allegations at all regarding how and when the alleged excessive force occurred or which police

officers were involved. Similarly, the complaint alleges that “Clearlake Police Department Officers

have used racial epithets or racially insensitive language directed against David Davis and Page

Gearhart-Davis,” (Compl. ¶ 8), but does not provide any factual allegations about these incidents. 

The remaining conclusions in the complaint also lack any factual basis. See Compl. ¶¶ 9-10. While

a liberal construction of the complaint seems to demonstrate that Plaintiffs are alleging violations of

their civil rights, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend because it lacks a factual

basis.1

 See Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

a court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint which fails to state a claim); Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints

reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, . . . .”). 

Therefore, in accordance with Rule 8 and this Order, Plaintiffs shall file an amended

complaint setting forth a short plain statement that clearly states the facts that form the basis for all

of their claims against Defendant and the relief they seek. The amended complaint shall be filed no

later than September 10, 2007. If Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint by that date, the matter

will be dismissed. Consideration of plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

deferred until an amended complaint is filed. Included with the mailed copy of this Order is a copy

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 4 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of the Court’s Pro Se Handbook. The Court urges the parties to review this Handbook prior to filing

their amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 4 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3