Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01852/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01852-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

GRADEY LEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1852 FCD EFB PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL U.S.

POSTAL SERVICE, ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to

prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

inquiry. Pursuant to 28 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

Case 2:07-cv-01852-FCD-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

defendant. 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a pro so plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will

not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level

on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Upon review of the complaint, the court has determined that it fails to comply with Rule

8. In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests and a demand for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

The complaint fails to comply with the first two requirements of Rule 8, as it fails to state a

claim or allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. For those same reasons, the complaint fails to

state a claim. The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s supervisor “harassed plaintiff by closing the

door on plaintiff and creating a hostile work environment. Plaintiff feels this harassment is in

retaliation for an earlier eeo [sic].” Compl., at p. 1. These vague, conclusory allegations are

insufficient to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S.Ct. at1964-65. In order to state a claim

of retaliation, the plaintiff must allege that (1) he was engaged in protected activity, (2) he

suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) there is a causal link between the activity and

the employment action. Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., 107 F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Plaintiff alleges no factual allegations that correspond with these elements. Furthermore, to the

extent plaintiff wishes to state a claim for harassment or a hostile work environment, he fails to

specify whether his claim is predicated on Title VII or some other statute or right. Clegg v. Cult

Case 2:07-cv-01852-FCD-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994) (the court is not required to accept or

infer legal conclusions if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged).

Further, the complaint states no jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court is a

court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution

and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic

federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and

“diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint

(1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within

the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized by a federal statute

that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369

U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically

allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.

1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless demonstrated

otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at

any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc.,

93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the complaint does not identify a federal statute or right conferring federal question

jurisdiction, nor does plaintiff allege any facts necessary to invoke the court’s diversity

jurisdiction. Because plaintiff alleges no basis for this court’s jurisdiction and fails to articulate

a cognizable claim for relief, the court must dismiss the complaint. However, plaintiff is granted

leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and corrects the deficiencies

addressed herein.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he is informed that the court cannot

refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an

Case 2:07-cv-01852-FCD-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves

any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the

original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint

are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Finally, the court addresses plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d), the court may designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in

certain exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85,

87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must

evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the ability of the plaintiff

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell, 935

F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the complexity of

the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims amount to exceptional

circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and,

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-01852-FCD-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

5

complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 31, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01852-FCD-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 5