Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01640-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JOHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1640 JAM DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff, John John, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and complaint are 

deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be denied without prejudice and plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave 

to amend.

////

////

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 6
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

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is incomplete. In this regard, plaintiff’s 

application fails to answer the question of whether in the past 12 months plaintiff received any 

money from one or more listed sources. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Moreover, even a determination that a 

plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required 

by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 

appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” 

Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank 

& Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support 

Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying McGee’s request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the amended 

complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 

116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it 

appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is 

found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis 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). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint 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; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 6
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

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing 

that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, plaintiff’s complaint alleges this “action is 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983,” against the only named defendant, the County of 

Sacramento. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) 

A municipality may be liable under § 1983 where the municipality itself causes the 

constitutional violation through a “policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or those 

whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy[.]” Monell v. Department of 

Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Municipal liability in a § 1983 case may be premised 

upon: (1) an official policy; (2) a “longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard 

operating procedure of the local government entity;” (3) the act of an “official whose acts fairly 

represent official policy such that the challenged action constituted official policy;” or (4) where 

“an official with final policy-making authority delegated that authority to, or ratified the decision 

of, a subordinate.” Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008). To sufficiently plead a 

Monell claim, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, 

but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 

opposing party to defend itself effectively.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 6
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

4

631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

Here, the compliant fails to contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts. Specifically, 

the complaint simply alleges in a vague and conclosury manner that the defendant was 

“implementing official policies,” that “[f]or decades, plaintiff . . . observed the public killings and 

prosecutions of the victims by the Sacramento County,” that “Sacramento County took the 

control of the house under the control of the plaintiff,” and that “ON 12/5/13, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY CAUSED THE KILLINGS OF THE OCCUPANTS BY A FIRE.”

1

 (Id. at 2) 

(emphasis in original). 

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

III. Leave to Amend

The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend 

include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. 

 

1

 The complaint also alleges that “defendant wants to prosecute plaintiff.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) 

at 2.) Plaintiff is advised that the Younger abstention doctrine generally forbids federal courts 

from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-

54 (1971); Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). Younger abstention is 

appropriate when state proceedings of a judicial nature: (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important 

state interests; and (3) provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex 

County Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Gilbertson v. 

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n 

v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to 

amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). However, 

when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff may be dismissed 

“only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 

claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 

1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972); see also Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 

F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is 

proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Here, given the extremely vague and conclusory nature of the complaint’s allegations, the 

undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile. 

Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if plaintiff elects to file an amended 

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint 

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While 

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual 

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from 

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events 

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 18, 2016 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 

denied without prejudice.

2. The complaint filed July 18, 2016 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 

amend.2

3. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint 

shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.3 The amended complaint must bear the case 

number assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

4. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: December 9, 2016

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/john1640.dism.lta.ord

 

2

 If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must either file a completed application 

to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee. 

3

 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action he may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:16-cv-01640-JAM-DB Document 4 Filed 12/12/16 Page 6 of 6