Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01149/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01149-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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 

JAMES T. BROWN, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

YELLOW FREIGHT TRUCKING, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1149 KJM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

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

undersigned by E.D. Cal. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has re-submitted his request for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff 

has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff 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). 

I. SCREENING 

 Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, however. The federal IFP statute 

requires 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)(B). 

 Plaintiff must assist the court in making this determination by drafting his complaint so 

Case 2:16-cv-01149-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 06/13/16 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

that it contains a “short and plain statement” showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, 

who harmed the plaintiffs, and in what way). While the complaint must be “short and plain,” it 

must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Specifically, “[t]he plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt 

acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.” Jones v. Cmty. 

Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis 

added) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

II. COMPLAINT 

 The complaint alleges simply, “Discrimination based on age and race (Black 64 yr. old),” 

and “The employee was denied employment from 1992 until present. Loss of earnings in an 

excess of $100,000 dollars.” See Complaint ¶¶ II(b)(3), III, IV. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Plaintiff’s complaint is certainly a short and plain statement. However, the complaint is 

so excessively short and plain that it does not give each defendant fair notice of what it is alleged 

to have done. The complaint does not specify the particular employment act or acts that are 

alleged to be discriminatory, when this discrimination occurred – other than a 24-year period 

from 1992 to the present – or what facts and circumstances would support the inference that racial 

animus was involved. Plaintiff alleges he was “denied employment,” but it is impossible to know 

whether plaintiff means that he applied for jobs and was denied, or that he was discharged from 

employment, let alone when these decisions were made and who made them. In short, there are 

no facts alleged that put defendants on notice of what overt acts on their part are alleged to have 

been discriminatory. 

 The court is aware that it could simply order the complaint to be served, and leave it to 

defendants to file motions seeking a more definite statement. However, it seems a more efficient 

use of judicial resources, and a more sensible procedure, to require at the outset that plaintiff 

provide enough facts in the complaint for defendants to know what it is they are being charged 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-01149-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 06/13/16 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

with. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be provided an opportunity 

to amend. 

III. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 Although plaintiff’s original complaint does not contain enough facts to put defendants on 

notice of the allegations against them, the court is not asking plaintiff to write down everything 

that happened to him from 1992 to the present. Instead, in amending his complaint, plaintiff is 

advised to keep the following in mind. 

 Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) 

(“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise and direct”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[t]he Federal Rules require that averments ‘be simple, concise, and direct’”). 

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 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 each defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. Since 

there are two defendants in this case, the amended complaint must set forth which defendant did 

what to plaintiff. 

 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to the prior complaint, or 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. 

Case 2:16-cv-01149-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 06/13/16 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

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

 2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days of the date of this 

order; 

 3. If plaintiff does not comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this 

action be dismissed. 

DATED: June 10, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01149-KJM-AC Document 5 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 4