Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00171/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00171-0/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

AKIKA PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00171-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se 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 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). 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00171-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 3
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

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. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

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

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not lay out, in plain terms, a statement of her claim or the relief 

she is seeking. Rather, plaintiff’s complaint puts forth a multitude of seemingly unrelated 

incidents. For example, in one page her complaint mentions police brutality, subliminal 

messages, lost fetuses, sexual assault, attempted poisoning, and a presidential pardon. (See ECF 

No. 1 at 6.) While there may be relevant factual allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint that 

could form the basis of an actionable claim, the court cannot currently determine the claim she is 

asserting, or how this court has jurisdiction over this matter. Thus, 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. 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 

Case 2:20-cv-00171-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 3
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

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

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 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 (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint in 

accordance with this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without 

prejudice; and

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the 

required deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the 

action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Dated: March 12, 2020

16.171.wlta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00171-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3