Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00636/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00636-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

PAUL WINFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0636 KJN P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis and

this case is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent (Dkt. No. 4). Pending before

the court is plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint. By concurrent order, the court found service

appropriate for defendant William Kulka, however, the remaining defendants must be dismissed.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Case 2:09-cv-00636-JAM -KJN Document 35 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. However,

“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and internal

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept

as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint has failed to correct the deficiencies of the

prior complaints. Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the actions of defendants Boora, Jaffee,

Goldman, Schwarzenegger, Rappoport, Soliman, or Jackson. Therefore, these defendants must

be dismissed.

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

Case 2:09-cv-00636-JAM -KJN Document 35 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

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. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Because plaintiff

has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be

dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff has previously been given numerous opportunities to amend his

complaint and repeatedly fails to state a cognizable claim against any defendant other than

William Kulka. Accordingly, any further amendments appear futile and plaintiff is not given

further leave to amend. If plaintiff files any further pleadings before proceeding with service

against defendant William Kulka, the court will consider such action as plaintiff’s consent to the

amended complaint also being dismissed as to defendant Kulka. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Boora,

Jaffee, Goldman, Schwarzenegger, Rappoport, Soliman and Jackson be dismissed with prejudice

from this action. 

DATED: March 16, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

winf0636.dism

Case 2:09-cv-00636-JAM -KJN Document 35 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3