Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK RICHARD O’DELL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

INYO CO. SHERIFFS DEPT., )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00658-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 1)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE A

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER

THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE

OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for injunctive

relief concerning alleged civil rights violations; the action was

transferred to the Court on May 30, 2006. The matter has been

referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in

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

II. Screening the Complaint

A. Legal Standard

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 8
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

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

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

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (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. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must 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).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v.

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 8
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

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

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

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

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

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 8
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

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir.

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff seeks an order directing a grand jury

investigation into “sex crimes committed by sworn officers

(a.k.a.) engineered deviorces that result in bodley harm or

death” that he alleges occurred in Independence, California; he

also seeks damages for himself and his children. (Cmplt. at 2.)

He refers to the provision of convicted felons for “entrapment

schemes,” and he refers to conduct of his wife or ex-wife (status

unclear) in 2001 involving her making large sums of money in a KMart store and possibly pictures of her conduct being down-loaded

to pornographic web sites from police or sheriff’s computers. He

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 4 of 8
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

It appears from Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis that he owes the Inyo County Sheriff’s

Department Child Support Division the sum of $36,000.00.

5

alleges that he caught a sexually transmitted disease in 2001. He

refers to unspecified sex crimes committed by unidentified

members of the police department of the city of Bishop as well as

the Inyo County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiff also refers to his

ex-wife’s having resorted to domestic violence as a means of

evicting him, without due process of law, from his home, which

was being bought pursuant to a H.U.D. housing contract in

connection with the Bishop Indian Housing Authority. Plaintiff

names as Defendants the Inyo County Sheriff’s Department and its

child support division;1 a retired district attorney, Phil

McDowell; and an Assistant District Attorney Christensen.

C. Analysis

Plaintiff does not allege specific facts or otherwise

provide a short and plain statement of grounds for jurisdiction

in this Court. 

Further, Plaintiff does not provide a short and plain

statement of his claims. Indeed, his complaint is so vague and

rambling that it is not possible to determine whether Plaintiff’s

claim is frivolous, malicious, or states a claim for relief.

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 must allege with at

least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 5 of 8
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

provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law]...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States... to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution... shall be liable to the party injured in

an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.

1986).

Here, Plaintiff has failed plainly to indicate the precise

conduct of any individual or entity. Further, it is possible that

the prosecutor defendants are entitled to immunity. However,

because Plaintiff’s allegations are so unclear, it is not

possible to determine whether the persons named as defendants are

entitled to immunity and thus that the claim is frivolous or

fails to state a claim.

 Plaintiff has failed to state facts indicating that

Defendants acted under color of state law. Plaintiff has failed

to specify the precise conduct that is the basis for his claim

and how that conduct resulted in a deprivation of any federally

protected rights.

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim against the Defendants and has failed to plead

facts demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent

with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that

would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of

this complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in

dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

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, 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 IS

GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED; and

3) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service

of this order to file a first amended complaint that complies

with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law, 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";

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order

of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 8 of 8