Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02600-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2600 LKK GGH PS

vs.

STATE COMPENSATION 

INSURANCE FUND ORDER

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, filed his original complaint on

December 22, 2005. On January 9, 2006, this court granted a request to proceed in forma

pauperis in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In its order, this court also dismissed

plaintiff’s claim based upon jurisdictional defects in the pleading and a failure to state a claim. 

The court gave plaintiff until February 8, 2006, to file an amended complaint that complies with

the requirements of Federal law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of

Practice. This order was served conventionally on plaintiff at his home address.

On the same day that the court published its order, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint alleging a violation of Federal law not contained in his original complaint. Given the

timing of the amended complaint and the need to serve all orders on the plaintiff through the

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

conventional mail, the court assumes that the plaintiff had not received the order dismissing his

original complaint. As a result, the amended complaint will be treated as a permissible

amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and not a first amended complaint in

response to the court’s order of dismissal. This rule permits amendment of a complaint prior to

the filing of any responsive pleading. On January 9, 2006, no responsive pleading from

defendant had been received by the court.

However, on January 11, 2006, defendant electronically filed a responsive

pleading alleging deficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and res judicata. Defendant filed this responsive

pleading after receiving service of the original complaint from plaintiff on or about December 20,

2005. The answer does not address the allegations in plaintiff’s January 9, 2006, amended

complaint. 

The amended complaint filed January 9, 2006, is defective in many of the same

ways as plaintiff’s original complaint was defective. 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). However, like the original complaint, there

appear to be no supporting facts in the amended complaint which provide the court with any

basis to determine plaintiff’s entitlement for relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 establishes general rules of pleading in the Federal Courts. 

Complaints are required to set forth (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 the

relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement which makes “sufficient

allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block,

932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). The complaint does not meet this requirement. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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). Plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff’s claim. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not address any of the deficiencies of his

original complaint, but rather, alleges a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO) by the State Insurance Compensation Fund. Plaintiff’s amended

complaint fails to state any facts and alleges no particular acts which implicate RICO. It states

that plaintiff is “informed” that defendant engages in the necessary RICO predicates; however,

plaintiff provides no specifics about this information or the basis of his knowledge. Plaintiff

admits he is “not aware of each co-conspirator’s, co-defendant’s identity or scope of

involvement,” and simply states that through discovery and subsequent pleadings he will prove

his case. Without some factual assertions in the complaint which will provide defendants with a

basis to prepare their case, including, at a bare minimum, the identity of those alleged to have

committed misconduct and what they are alleged to have done, plaintiff’s assertion that he “will

EASILY provide insight and expose defendants’ [RICO violations]” does not meet the pleading

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.

Ed. 2d 80 (1957); Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995)

(amended complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of 

Rule 8); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1202 (2d ed. 1990).

If the lack of specific factual allegations in the amended complaint was the result

of plaintiff’s attempt simply to add an additional cause of action to his original complaint,

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

plaintiff is reminded 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). As a result, upon filing of the amended complaint, the original complaint no longer

has any legal relevance.

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

8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, extend the leave

previously granted in order to allow the plaintiff to consolidate his deficient complaints and file a

comprehensive, second amended complaint. 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. Plaintiff is reminded that his second amended complaint

cannot reference either of his two previous filings and must be complete on its face. The court

will not look to any allegation in plaintiff’s original or amended complaint and import them into

his second amended complaint. Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original

pleadings no longer serve 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.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of Federal 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 “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

3. Because defendant’s motion came in response to a complaint which no longer

exists as a result of this court’s January 9, 2006, dismissal, it serves no function and is moot.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss filed January 11, 2006, is vacated without prejudice. 

 DATED: 1/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kr

Rodriguez2600.amd2.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/20/06 Page 5 of 5