Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00397-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0397 MCE JFM PS

vs.

RON BARBOSA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to and

has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

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).

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

Case 2:06-cv-00397-MCE -JFM Document 7 Filed 05/12/06 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

 This requirement is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. See Zipes v. 1

Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385, 398 (1982)

2

(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

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, 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). 

Before bringing a Title VII action in federal court, a plaintiff must first exhaust

administrative remedies by filing a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”). See E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994).1

This charge must be filed within 180 days of the last discriminatory act (or within 300 days in a

state, such as California, which has its own anti-discrimination laws and agency). See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-1. The district court complaint must be filed within 90 days of receipt of a Right-to-Sue

Letter from the EEOC. See id. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The scope of the district court’s jurisdiction is

limited by the allegations contained in the EEOC charge and the EEOC investigation. See Farmer

Bros. Co. 31 F. 3d at 891. 

Here, plaintiff has not alleged he filed a complaint with EEOC, nor appended a

right to sue letter from the EEOC. This requirement is jurisdictional; plaintiff may not proceed

herein without obtaining said letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an

Case 2:06-cv-00397-MCE -JFM Document 7 Filed 05/12/06 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

3

amended complaint to demonstrate he has exhausted his administrative remedies. However,

plaintiff is cautioned that if he cannot, this court will be required to issue findings and

recommendations recommending this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Moreover, in addition to his 34 page complaint, plaintiff has filed a 39 page

memorandum of points and authorities, a 10 page memorandum of points and authorities, and 35

pages of exhibits with an index. Plaintiff is advised that his complaint must be complete in itself. 

Plaintiff is not required to cite legal authority or quote cases in support of his allegations. 

Plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of his claims with sufficient factual

support to give defendants adequate notice of his allegations. Plaintiff need not recite every fact

in support of his claim nor provide points and authorities in support of his position. Such

briefing will be required later, once dispositive motions have been filed.

Finally, plaintiff is advised that individual defendants are not personally liable

under Title VII. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir.1993). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's 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 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). Plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00397-MCE -JFM Document 7 Filed 05/12/06 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

4

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

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 request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

3. 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 "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: May 11, 2006. 

/001;whitsitt.lta

Case 2:06-cv-00397-MCE -JFM Document 7 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 4