Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00500-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE JACKSON, No. CIV.S-05-0500 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

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

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that 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

Case 2:05-cv-00500-RRB -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/20/05 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

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

defendant. 

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). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the 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. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

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

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00500-RRB -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/20/05 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

The court finds the allegations in the 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

complaint is somewhat unintelligible and does not indicate any basis

for federal jurisdicton. The reference at the end of the nine-page,

handwritten complaint to the United States Constitution as providing

monetary compensation “whenever and wherever” a persons “rights were

not given” does not suffice in this regard. Further, the only named

defendant is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the complaint,

liberally construed, contains allegations that plaintiff’s mother

received inadequate health care at San Joaquin General Hospital and

at her home while being cared for by nurses employed by the State of

California. The complaint does mot address plaintiff’s standing to

raise such claims. Moreover, the complaint contains a reference to

the California Health and Safety Code in this regard. These

allegations indicate that plaintiff’s claim is more properly pursued

in state court rather than this court which appears to lack subject

matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, 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). The complaint

fails to meet these requirements. As noted, the complaint also fails

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00500-RRB -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/20/05 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

to set forth any factual allegations giving rise to federal

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court will grant leave to file an

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he

must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear factual

allegations describing the events which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

In addition, 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, prior

pleadings no longer serve 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. Any

amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary factual

description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00500-RRB -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/20/05 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

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, must bear the number assigned this

case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. Plaintiff must file an

original and two copies of any amended complaint.

DATED: October 20, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\jackson0500.dism.lta

Case 2:05-cv-00500-RRB -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 5