Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00612/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00612-0/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NICK ESCO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TOLLER BAIL BONDS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00612-GEB-AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

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

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

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

 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(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 

Case 2:15-cv-00612-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 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 

27 

28 

2

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. 

 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 a 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). 

It is difficult to discern from plaintiff’s complaint what claims he intends to assert. 

Although plaintiff submitted his complaint on a form used by prisoners for § 1983 claims, the 

only named defendant is not a public entity or public employee. See ECF No. 1 at 1 (naming 

Toller Bail Bonds as the only defendant); 2 (stating “the jail” told plaintiff it had nothing to do 

with his complaint); 3 (alleging facts without reference to the government at all). Plaintiff is 

informed that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a civil rights statute that provides for suits against individuals 

who act “under color of law,” which means as representatives of state or local government. See 

generally West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988). 

It seems that plaintiff may be trying to state a claim for conversion, although he does not 

identify this legal theory as the basis for his complaint. Plaintiff alleges that he was let out on 

bond by Toller Bail Bonds despite the fact that he “did not ask to be let out.” Id. at 2. 

Apparently, Toller (presumably the owner/operator of Toller Bail Bonds) told the landlord of 

plaintiff’s former spouse, Martha Garza-Esco, that he had the right to enter her apartment. Id. at 

2–3. Once in Ms. Garza-Esco’s apartment Toller stole $8,500 from her dresser drawer. Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff seeks the return of that $8,500. Id. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as 

Case 2:15-cv-00612-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 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 

27 

28 

3

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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’s 

complaint does not include any cognizable legal theory entitling him to relief from defendant and 

accordingly, it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). 

It is also worth noting that plaintiff likely does not have standing to assert any claim based 

on the facts alleged in his complaint. Article III provides the constitutional requirements for 

standing: (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact; (2) causation; and (3) redressability. 

Central Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 2002). “To satisfy the 

Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered some actual injury that 

can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 

U.S. 67, 70 (1983). The injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the 

defendant.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). In addition, the party 

filing the action or removing it to federal court bears the burden of establishing the constitutional 

elements of standing. Id. at 561; Central Delta Water Agency, 306 F.3d at 947. Plaintiff alleges 

that Toller stole $8,500 from Ms. Garza-Esco. ECF No. 1 at 3. As long as the $8,500 in question 

belonged exclusively to Ms. Garza-Esco, plaintiff has not alleged any injury to him that would 

create an Article III case or controversy. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to file an amended complaint, he must submit a 

short and plain statement in accordance with Federal Rule 8(a) explaining who has engaged in 

what actions, how those actions have injured him, and what law entitles him to relief. Plaintiff 

must allege facts showing that he has suffered an injury caused by the defendant sufficient to 

create a case or controversy. Any amended complaint must also show that the federal court has 

jurisdiction, that the action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if his 

allegations are true, and the amended complaint must contain a request for particular relief. The 

amended complaint should contain separately numbered, clearly identified claims. 

In addition, the allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered 

paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph 

Case 2:15-cv-00612-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 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 

27 

28 

4

having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. 

Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 10(b). Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

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. 

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

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed; and 

 3. 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 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 “First Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of 

the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: April 22, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00612-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4