Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN FLOYD BOURN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1824-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a first amended 

complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 10, after his original pleading was dismissed on the basis of 

defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See ECF No. 7 (previous screening order). 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 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/23/14 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

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond 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, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 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). 

 Applying these standards, the court finds that plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a cause of 

action for the following reasons. 

First, plaintiff claims to incorporate the facts he alleged in his original complaint by 

reference, ECF No. 10 at 2, despite the fact that the court explicitly stated in its September 12, 

2014, order that he is prohibited from doing so, ECF No. 7 at 4. Perhaps believing that he could 

rely on the allegations in his original complaint, plaintiff also fails to state the legal basis of a 

single claim against defendant. Instead, plaintiff simply alleges that he was wrongly prosecuted 

for failure to register as a sex offender. ECF No. 10 at 6–7. Such an allegation is not, without 

more, sufficient to give rise to a cause of action. 

Second, plaintiff fails to address the central issue of defendant’s immunity from liability. 

As the court explained in its September 12, 2014 order, the Eleventh Amendment’s state 

sovereignty immunity provision bars plaintiff from pursuing the claims contained in his original 

complaint against the State of California. See Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825, 835 (2d Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff does not directly dispute the State’s immunity in his FAC. Instead, plaintiff argues that 

his FAC should survive because he has brought his claims against other individuals in their 

personal and official capacities. ECF No. 10 at 17. This is simply not the case. Although 

plaintiff alleges that a number of individuals—including his public defender and the district 

attorney—conspired to convict him, id. at 10 at 7, the only named defendant that appears in the 

caption of plaintiff’s FAC is the State of California. 

Finally, plaintiff argues that whether he has stated a claim is irrelevant because the fact 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/23/14 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

that defendant has failed to file an answer to his complaint entitles him to a default judgment.1 

Generally, a defendant must file a responsive pleading within 21 days after being served with the 

summons and complaint or, if that defendant has waived service, within 60 days after the request 

for a waiver was sent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). Defendant has yet to be served in this matter. 

Accordingly, a default judgment is not proper because defendant has not missed its deadline to 

file a responsive pleading or failed to defend itself under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). 

 Plaintiff will be granted one final attempt to state a viable cause of action. If plaintiff 

chooses to amend his complaint, he must set forth the jurisdictional grounds upon which the 

court’s jurisdiction depends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must include as a defendant a 

person or entity subject to liability for his claims. Plaintiff must name any defendant he 

intends to sue in the caption of his complaint. The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved and include a short and plain statement of the facts as 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 

FAC, which does not state the legal basis of his claims against defendant, does not meet this 

requirement. 

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. 

//// 

 

1

 Plaintiff also argues that the court is barred from dismissing his complaint sua sponte because 

doing so constitutes inappropriate advocacy on behalf of defendant. In accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court has the authority to dismiss claims sua sponte that seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/23/14 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

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

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 10) is dismissed; and 

 2. 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 “Second 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: October 22, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/23/14 Page 4 of 4