Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00131-0/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 

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-00131 KJM AC PS 

ORDER 

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

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 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). 

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 

the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rulespolicies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 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 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 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 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 

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

A. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff brings suit against the City of Stockton, multiple Stockton police officers, 

Superior Court Judge J. Northup, state court employees, individuals who appear to be private 

attorneys and state prosecutors, and 25 “other unnamed defendants.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff 

characterizes this case as a “civil rights suit at-law” and references numerous portions of the U.S. 

Constitution. Id. The complaint is very difficult to understand because of the manner in which it 

is written. Plaintiff references an instance in which he was prevented from attending the Bible 

College of his choice. Id. at 2. Plaintiff refences a conspiracy amongst Stockton and San Joaquin 

police officers. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges the San Joaquin Court system is a criminal enterprise 

engaged in conspiracies. Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges he was falsely arrested by “friends of Kelly 

and Nicky Morris” in the Stockton police department. Id. Plaintiff alleges his rights were 

violated because he was not served a copy of an alleged restraining order before being arrested. 

Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges the San Joaquin County Probation Department searched his apartment 

unlawfully without a warrant on December 14, 2019. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiff appears to contend 

that his education at Bible College was interrupted or interfered with when a restraining order was 

placed against him. Id. at 17-19. 

 B. Analysis 

Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be served because it does not state any cognizable legal claim 

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and because it does not contain a “short and plain” 

statement setting froth plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though 

those things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). The exact nature of what happened to 

plaintiff is unclear from the complaint, which does not present any clear legal claims or an 

understandable narrative to support plaintiff’s claims. The court cannot tell from examining the 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 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 

complaint what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged harm 

is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the complaint does not contain a short and 

plain statement of facts, and it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The court also notes that at least one defendant, a judge, is likely immune from suit. 

“[G]enerally, a judge is immune from a suit for money damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 

(1991). Judicial immunity applies unless (1) the actions in question are nonjudicial; or (2) the 

actions in question, though judicial in nature, were taken in complete absence of jurisdiction. Id. 

at 11-12. Here, the complaint does not contain any facts that suggest either exception applies. 

Court employees may also come within the scope of the immunity, which extends “in appropriate 

circumstances to non jurists ‘who perform functions closely associated with the judicial 

process.’” In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 

U.S. 193, 200 (1985)). Similarly, prosecutors are entitled to immunity for acts that come within 

the scope of their prosecutorial functions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 

Rather than recommending dismissal of the action at this time, the undersigned will 

provide plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction 

and facts supporting a cognizable cause of action. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must contain a short 

and plain statement that alleges and supports specific legal claims. 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. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help 

plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 

501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 

www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 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 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 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 

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 the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 

 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 

complaint what legal harm was done to you. Because the complaint as written does not present a 

clear set of facts or clear legal claims, it will not be served on defendants. Your lawsuit cannot 

proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 

You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis 

for federal jurisdiction. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms 

what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 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 

affected you. Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to 

bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the 

undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: March 2, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00131-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/02/20 Page 6 of 6