Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00131-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE M. ALLEN, SR., ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

SHIRLEY ANN CARTHLEDGE, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-00131-LJO-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 2)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (DOC. 1)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Fresno

County Jail who is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged loss of property. The matter

has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

on January 25, 2008. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration with

exhibits that makes the showing required by § 1915(a).

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Screening the Complaint

Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 25, 2008.

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

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

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims 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

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Shirley Ann

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Carthledge falsely endorsed an income tax check with a value of

$327.00, has identification documents and credit and debit cards

belonging to Plaintiff, has specified personal property valued on

$800.00, and failed to apply six months of monthly payments of

$35.00 to payment of a Visa account. Plaintiff seeks replevin of

the personal items and damages in the amount of $1,302.00.

Plaintiff appears to be alleging common state law claims in

contract and/or tort.

It is Plaintiff’s burden to allege a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction

depends unless the Court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298

U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Local Rule 8-204 provides:

When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is

required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it

(i) shall appear as the first allegation of any

complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or

third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,”

(iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other

basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state

the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim.

 

Here, Plaintiff fails to state any basis for subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff does not appear to be

asserting any right arising under federal statute, treaty, or the

Constitution that would confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

Further, Plaintiff, who is presently in custody in Fresno

County, does not include any allegations regarding the

citizenship of Defendant or of Plaintiff; however, even if

jurisdiction were possible based on the citizenship of the

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 6
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

parties, Plaintiff appears to be involved in a civil controversy

over property that involves much less than the jurisdictional

minimum of monetary amount for this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332, which requires for jurisdiction not only diversity of

citizenship, but also an amount in controversy greater than

$75,000.00.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a basis for

jurisdiction in this Court.

III. Leave to Amend

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts

demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is possible

that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent with the

allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would entitle

him to relief and would demonstrate jurisdiction in this Court.

Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the

complaint to cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to

cure the deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action

without leave to amend.

A complaint must 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 the defendants engaged in that

support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997);

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not

alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at

567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814

(9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff’s complaint IS DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE an

amended complaint; and

3) 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 pertinent substantive law, 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 "First Amended Complaint"; 

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order

of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 3 Filed 01/30/08 Page 6 of 6