Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ, No. CIV.S-06-0413 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

POLICE OFFICER MICHELL, 

BADGE 0533, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

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 the undersigned by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(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

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

2

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 legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

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

1984). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

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

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him 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 the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

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

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

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 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 defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff’s claim. Id. 

The complaint fails to meet these requirements. It

consists of six handwritten pages which are difficult to decipher. 

The named defendants are five officers of the Sacramento Police

Department. The complaint refers to an incident on September 10,

2001, during which one Roneld Moore allegedly assaulted plaintiff. 

However, no specific conduct is attributed to the named defendants. 

In this regard, the complaint simply asserts that plaintiff “was

assaulted by Roneld Moore on my property because of a conspiracy with

Sacramento Police Officer[s] to set me up with crimes that are [made]

up and fabricated by law enforcement.” (Compl. at 3.) The complaint

goes on to allege that plaintiff was arrested and charge with a

violation of California Penal Code § 245 (assault with a deadly

weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury), and “kept in

jail for 17 months.” In any event, the complaint lacks sufficient

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

 The caption of the complaint refers to state tort claims for 1

false arrest, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of

emotional distress. Of course, these state law claims by themselves

are insufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction and,

standing alone, would more appropriately be pursued in state court.

 The complaint is not at all clear in this regard. In addition 2

to the allegations regarding Mr. Moore and the police officers, the

complaint contains confusing allegations that “plaintiff is a

qualified individual with a disability.” (Compl. at 2.) It also

refers to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which would appear to

be inapplicable since the named defendants are City of Sacramento

police officers. The FTCA provides the sole remedy against the

United States for torts committed by its employees in the scope of

their employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1).

4

detail for the court to decipher the crux of this action. There 1

also is no discernible prayer for relief. For all of these reasons,

the court finds that the complaint’s vague allegations do not amount

to a short and plain statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is

entitled to relief or set forth any factual allegations giving rise

to federal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). 

While the complaint alleges no plausible basis for federal

jurisdiction, the court recognizes that plaintiff may be attempting

to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation

of his civil rights. However, to the extent plaintiff is attempting 2

to bring a § 1983 action the complaint does not allege how the

conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of a right,

privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a

person acting under color of state law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d

119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992); Lopez v. Dept. of Health Serv., 939 F.2d

881, 883 (9th Cir. 1991). The Civil Rights Act provides as follows:

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

Every person who, under color of [state law] ...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen

of the United States ... to the deprivation of

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the

deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode,

423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does

an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Finally, to the extent plaintiff’s complaint seeks

appellate review of any state court criminal proceedings in which

plaintiff may have been involved, plaintiff is advised that a federal

district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state

court decisions. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415

(1923).

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court will grant leave to file an

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he

must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear and

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

concise factual allegations describing the events which underlie

plaintiff’s claims.

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

initial complaint 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. Any amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary

factual description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, must bear the docket number assigned

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 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

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. Plaintiff must

file an original and two copies of the amended complaint.

DATED: May 18, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\alvarez0413.ifp.lta

Case 2:06-cv-00413-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/19/06 Page 7 of 7