Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01834-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY E. WILLIAMS, ) Case No. 06-cv-1834 OWW TAG

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

) PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

) (Doc. 5)

STATE OFFICIALS, et al., ) 

) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendants. ) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

 ) (Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Gregory E. Williams (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and seeks leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) in his pro se civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 5). The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302

and 72-303.

In his complaint, plaintiff contends that Defendant State Officials and Government Officials

(collectively “the defendants”), and the Department of the Interior (the “Dept”), which is not a named

defendant, refused to provide him the rights and benefits to which he is entitled as a Native American.

(Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff further asserts that requests he made to the Dept under the Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 522, were denied. (Id.). It appears that plaintiff alleges that the

above-referenced matters subjected the defendants to liability for depriving him of his rights under the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Id.). Plaintiff’s request for relief includes

information under the FOIA, benefits due him based on his heritage, attorney fees and costs, and

equitable and other relief to which he is entitled. (Id., p. 4).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and (e)(2)(B), this Court must “screen” a prisoner’s

complaint to determine whether the case should be dismissed because, among other things, it “is

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 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

27

28

2

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets for a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim,

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the

relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be

demanded. 

A complaint must 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 the

defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all elements

of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the allegations that all elements exist and that there is

entitlement to relief under some viable legal theory. Lewis v. ACB Business Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389,

405-406 (6th Cir. 1998); Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990).

To state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint must set forth facts from which

it can be inferred that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of rights secured

him by the Constitution or federal statutes. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,

1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any particular actions that the unspecific defendants took

that could constitute a violation of his constitutional or federal rights. (Doc. 1). The only allegation in

plaintiff’s complaint is that an unnamed defendant – the Dept – failed to comply with his FOIA requests

and that his rights as a Native American were violated, although it is not clear by whom. (Id.). Even

if the Dept were a named defendant, plaintiff fails to allege that it was acting under color of state law.

(Id.). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, because plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff’s “Application to Proceed Without

Payment of Fees” (Doc. 5) must be denied without prejudice, and plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) must

be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff, however, is provided an opportunity to file an amended

complaint, in which he can explain how the actions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 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

27

28

3

constitutional rights under color of state law and at which time the Court will reconsider his IFP

application. 

Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 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 underlying facts must be

sufficiently alleged. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without payment of fees, (Doc. 5), is DENIED

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED, with leave to amend, for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 

3. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; and

4. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaintwithin thirty(30) days from the date

of service of this order.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this

action and/or the defendants named therein for failure to obey this Court’s order. Local

Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3