Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02667/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02667-0/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 

MICHAEL HORNE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2667-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 His 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must 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 defendant. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must therefore be dismissed. 

 Here, it is apparent from the face of the pleading that the complaint must be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. 

 1

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

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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

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

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[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). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 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). A pro se plaintiff must 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 A pro se plaintiff must 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

Additionally, 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, 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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

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). 

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it must be dismissed because it 

does not comply with Rule 8 or state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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). At a minimum plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. The allegations must be 

short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 

F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading naming many defendants with an 

unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional injury or a mere 

laundry list of unrelated claims does not suffice. 

 Rather than submitting a “short and plain statement” of his claims, plaintiff has filed a 

complaint that consists of forty, single-spaced typed pages which fail to identify what claim(s) is 

being presented against what defendant(s). See generally ECF No. 1. The complaint purports to 

name more than 30 defendants, but is devoid of any allegations demonstrating the named 

defendants engaged in any particular wrongful conduct giving rise to any particular cause of 

action. Id. Furthermore, some of the named defendants are not readily ascertainable individuals 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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

or entities. For instant, plaintiff’s list of defendants includes “all group homes,” “all residential 

treatment centers,” and “smokers.” Id. at 1-2. 

 The complaint consists of little more than disjointed allegations concerning a variety of 

topics, none of which appear to have anything to do with the named defendants. It rambles on at 

length about how plaintiff has a constitutional right to make a living by recycling goods and that 

he has been denied access to various public places because he typically carries a bag of 

recyclables. See generally ECF No. 1 at 8-23. The complaint is also replete with references to 

the founding fathers, the bill of rights, civil rights leaders, statements about how his mother 

provided him with an informal legal education, and allegations of unspecified individuals 

harassing him. Id. But plaintiff does not allege a cause of action against any specific defendant. 

 Plaintiff also claims that he received a citation for having a shopping cart in his possession 

and that he can prove that a “no shopping cart law” is unconstitutional. Id. at 23-27. Plaintiff 

also takes issue with unidentified people smoking next to children at bus stops, and claims that 

such people should be sent “to prison for attempted murder because smoking cause (cancer) [sic], 

cancer causes death . . . .” Id. at 34. He further alleges that he has “attention deficit and hyper 

activity disorder, borderline, mild, and moderate retardation, asthma, tone deaf, volume deaf, heat 

stroke, and heat exhaustion,” and that he is speaking on behalf of other “gifted and unique people 

who do not have a voice.” Id. The foregoing is merely a sample of the various disjointed 

allegations that seemly have nothing in common and no relation to the named defendants. The 

complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, and the vague and incoherent allegations are insufficient to 

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

 Furthermore, it is not clear from plaintiff’s complaint whether this court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim(s), since the complaint does not allege diversity of the parties 

and it is unclear how the facts alleged in the complaint would give rise to a federal claim. Thus, 

the complaint must also be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a basis for this 

court’s jurisdiction, as well as a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the allegations against defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered 

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line 

numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and 

130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and 

against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must 

plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself. 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). 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 cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 

 3. 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 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 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

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: June 9, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 6