Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02004/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02004-0/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

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2004 WBS DAD P

vs.

DEBORAH RUGGERIO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, an out of state prisoner in Albion, Pennsylvania, has filed a hand-written

civil rights complaint, naming several defendants, including a court reporter and the “Prison

Legal Newspaper.” Plaintiff has not paid the court filing fee of $350.00 or filed an application

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will provide plaintiff an opportunity to

do so.

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). 

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that 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 in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

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

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

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

an amended complaint.

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is advised that in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff

must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the complained of

act was committed; and (2) that person's conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451

U.S. 527, 535 (1981), rev'd on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). The

Prison Legal Newspaper does not act under color of state law and, therefore, is not a proper

defendant. Plaintiff is also advised that court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity when

they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process. See Mullis v. United States

Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Lastly, 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 original pleading 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. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

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

1. Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, filed on September 7, 2006, is dismissed;

2. 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 Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; plaintiff must use the form complaint

provided by the court and he must answer each question on the form complaint; the amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended

Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint. Plaintiff

shall also submit, within thirty days from the date of service of this order, the application to

proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the filing fee in the

amount of $350.00. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that this matter be dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner.

DATED: September 22, 2006.

DAD:bb/4

nich2004.nocmp

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 4