Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00607/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00607-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

KAREN JEAN CALDWELL,

Plaintiff, 

vs. No. CIV S-06-0607 FCD GGH PS

S.S.A.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, 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 this court by Local Rule

72-302(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 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 frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-00607-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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 Neither does it comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of pleadings. 1

2

1984); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). A complaint, or portion thereof,

fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt there is no set of supporting facts entitling

plaintiff 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 its

allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in

the light most favorable to plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.

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

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

The court cannot determine whether the complaint is frivolous or can be amended

to state a claim, because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Rule 8 sets forth general 1

rules of pleading for the Federal Courts. Rule 8(a) requires complaints to include: (1) the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for relief. The complaint fails to meet all of

these requirements. The basis for this court’s jurisdiction is unclear, the complaint is not short

and plain, and plaintiff has not made a demand for relief.

Plaintiff appears to allege that she was a victim of identity theft. She asserts that

she was “falsely arrested and checks were mailed to these address [sic] listed.” Compl. at 1. She 

wants repayment of benefits. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00607-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff has not listed grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests. A simple

reference to federal law does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co.,

53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause

of action within the court’s original jurisdiction. Id. “It is axiomatic that the United States may

not be sued without its consent and the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” 

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,

586 (1941). A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally

expressed by Congress. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969). 

Here, plaintiff has not even referenced the federal law upon which jurisdiction

might rest, and has not articulated how the Social Security Administration has violated her rights.

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 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 defendant engaged in that

support plaintiff’s claim. Id. The problem is that a claim is not stated if the complaint contains

only conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts. Id. See Gibson v. U.S., 781 F.2d 1334, 1340

(9th Cir. 1986). The complaint must state some facts to support each element of a claim. 

Moreover, to respect individual defendant’s right to be notified of the allegations with which they

are charged, a complaint must make clear the connections between specific allegations and

individual defendants. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The requirement of a short and plain statement means a complaint must include

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99,

Case 2:06-cv-00607-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

102 (1957); Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (vague and

scanty allegations fail to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1202 (2d ed. 1990). 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,

the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended

complaint.

Plaintiff is informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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

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). 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

2. The complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days of this order. PLAINTIFF IS ADVISED THAT ANY FUTURE FILINGS SHOULD

REFER TO THE CIVIL CASE NUMBER STAMPED ON PAGE ONE OF THIS ORDER.

DATED: 6/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Caldwell0607.amd.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-00607-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 06/05/06 Page 4 of 4