Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03550/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03550-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

 Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on a form complaint used to assert claims under the 1

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but plaintiff also appended a separately-drafted document

captioned “Civil Tort Complaint for Defamation Libel, Slander.” (See Dkt. No. 1.) Although

plaintiff is currently incarcerated in a California State Prison, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that

his claim “has nothing to do with the prison administrations system.” (Pl.’s Compl. at 2.) The

complaint alleges claims for defamation based on alleged libel and slander by a newspaper and

does not allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, SR.

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03550 FCD KJN PS

v.

THE SACRAMENTO BEE, ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel whose complaint alleges

claims unrelated to his incarceration (see Dkt. No. 1 at 2). Presently before the court are four 1

motions or applications filed by plaintiff: (1) plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(Dkt. No. 2); (2) plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to file a completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4), which plaintiff filed in response to an

order of this court (Dkt. No. 3); (3) plaintiff’s subsequent application to proceed in forma

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 2

Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was reassigned by an order entered

February 9, 2010 (Dkt. No. 5).

 On January 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time seeking 30 3

additional days to respond to the court’s order, but the court had not acted on that request before

plaintiff filed a subsequent application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 6.) The

undersigned deems plaintiff’s subsequent application, filed February 12, 2010, timely filed and

will deny plaintiff’s request for an extension of time as moot.

2

pauperis (Dkt. No. 6); and (4) plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 7). Each

2

matter is addressed below.

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. As indicated in the court’s January 7, 2010 order, Plaintiff’s initial application to

proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete because it did not include “the second page of the

application which must contain his signature as well as the certificate portion of the request

which must be completed by plaintiff’s institution of incarceration.” (Dkt. No. 3 at 1.) The

court’s order permitted plaintiff to file a completed application, which plaintiff filed on February

12, 2010. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed application and declaration make the 3

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). (Id.) Accordingly, his request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court

will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s prison

trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to

make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to

plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to

the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing

fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

 “[A] complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 4

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” is separately subject to screening pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This provision is inapplicable to the present action because defendants

here are not government entities.

 Aside from the prescriptions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court has an independent 5

duty to ascertain whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over an action. See, e.g., United

Investor Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2004); Bank Julius

Baer & Co. v. Wikileaks, 535 F. Supp. 2d 980, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

 Although the captions in plaintiff’s form complaint and separate, appended complaint 6

only name “The Sacramento Bee” as a defendant (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 4), the form complaint

additionally refers to “The McClatchy Company” as a defendant that “employs” The Sacramento

Bee (id. at 2). The undersigned construes plaintiff’s complaint as only asserting claims against

The Sacramento Bee for the purpose of screening the complaint. If plaintiff intends to name The

3

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. The court is also 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 4

1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it

determines that the claims alleged in the complaint are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an

arguable basis in either law or fact,” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), and a

complaint will be dismissed as “frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) where there is no basis

for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th 5

Cir. 1995) (holding that a complaint is properly dismissed where it “neither identifies any

constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction or waiver of sovereign immunity”); accord Rodriguez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals

Bd. of the State of Cal., No. CIV S-08-2440 EFB PS, 2008 WL 5100180, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov.

25, 2008) (unpublished); Hightower v. Cal. Supreme Court, No. CIV 06-2941 ALA P, 2007 WL

2265587, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) (unpublished). 

Plaintiff’s form complaint alleges that The Sacramento Bee newspaper6

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

McClatchy Company as a defendant in this action, he should include that entity in the caption.

 Plaintiff’s complaint also states that plaintiff previously sued The Sacramento Bee in 7

Sacramento County Superior Court, referring to Case No. 34200800022967, and that the case

was dismissed, that plaintiff appealed the matter, and that the appeal was also dismissed. 

(Compl. at 1.) Because plaintiff’s complaint does not reveal the claims at issue in the previous

state court action and the nature of the dismissal, the undersigned does not address any potential

preclusive effect that the state court action might have on the present action.

4

“published an article that was untrue, slanderous, libelous, [and] defamatory about the plaintiff.”7

(Compl. at 3 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff seeks one million dollars in

compensatory damages for defamation, libel, slander, “irreparable damages,” and “general

damages.” He also seeks punitive damages. (Compl. at 3.) The complaint, however, does not

state any basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and must, therefore, be dismissed. 

Generally, original federal subject matter jurisdiction may be premised on two

bases: (1) federal question jurisdiction, and (2) diversity jurisdiction. District courts have

federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either where

federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law

necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican Party of Guam v.

Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (modification in original) (citing Franchise

Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or absence

of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

582 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). District courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs,” and the action is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a

State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which

citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

5

and citizens of a State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Neither plaintiff’s form complaint nor his separately appended complaint contains

allegations related this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Neither document alleges that this

court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims for defamation, libel, slander,

“irreparable damages,” and “general damages.” Similarly, these documents do not allege that

diversity jurisdiction exists over plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the complaint must be

dismissed. 

To proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint that asserts a basis for this

court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Also, in an amended complaint, the allegations must be set

forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Furthermore, an amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Eastern District Local Rule 220;

see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint,

the original pleading is superseded.

It appears that plaintiff already intends to file an amended complaint, evidenced

by the document he filed with the court entitled “Permission To Amend Complaint, Fed. R. Civ.

Pro., Rule 15(1)(A).” (Dkt. No. 7.) The undersigned construes this document as a motion for

leave to file an amended complaint and denies that motion as moot because (1) as noted above,

plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint in connection with the court’s screening

of his complaint; and (2) plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint once as a matter of course,

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 2, 6) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this

action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order

to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

6

herewith.

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Amendment and submit it and an amended complaint to the court. The

amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be entitled “First

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation this

action be dismissed. 

5. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 4) is denied as moot.

6. Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7) is denied as

moot. 

DATED: March 9, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, SR., 

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3550 FCD KJN PS

v.

THE SACRAMENTO BEE, NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Defendant.

_________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s

order filed March __, 2010:

______________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 8 Filed 03/10/10 Page 7 of 7