Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01386/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01386-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE WILLIAMS, CASE NO. CV F 07-1386 LJO SMS

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Lee Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (“section 1983") action. Plaintiff proceeds on his second amended complaint (“SAC”) which

appears to attempt to pursue section 1983 claims against Fresno City police officers B. Williams

(“Officer Williams”) and J. Campos (“Officer Campos”). The SAC takes issue with plaintiff’s

December 5, 2005 arrest and incarceration for parole violation and appears to allege that Officers

Williams and Campos illegally arrested plaintiff to deny plaintiff’s equal protection rights. Plaintiff filed

the SAC in response to this Court’s October 2, 2007 order, which dismissed public entity defendants and

certain claims for relief.

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 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

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

This Court is entitled to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court

must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, which “is frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Moreover, “[a] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot

possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. th

Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua sponte dismissal may be made before process is served

th

on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss

th

frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte prior to service of process on defendants). 

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid,shall dismiss a case at any time if the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2007) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-1228. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where

it is based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 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

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex 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);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss a case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim 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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294

(9 Cir. 1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of th

any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to

support claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco

Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

As further explained below, the SAC demonstrates that plaintiff is entitled to offer no evidence

for its vague, deficient claims.

General Deficiencies

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . 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 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.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 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

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Dept. of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need not th

outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these elements

exist.” Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB th

Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading policy of th

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 (9 Cir. 1984). th

A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant engaged

in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

The SAC alleges no definitive causes of action against Officers Williams and Campos. The SAC

lacks specific allegations of facts or wrongs to support section 1983 claims against Officers Williams

and Campos. The SAC’s specific claims are unclear. The SAC fails to give fair notice and state the

elements of claims plainly and succinctly.

Section 1983 Deficiencies

To the extent plaintiff attempts to allege constitutional violations, the SAC fails in that section

1983 provides:

Every person who, under the 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 proceedings for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) defendant acted under color of state

law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2) defendant deprived 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 (9 Cir. 1986). The SAC fails to state colorable claims against Officers th

Williams and Campos. The SAC points to no constitutional right of which Officers Williams or Campos

deprived plaintiff.

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 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

Moreover, section 1983 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of defendant and deprivation allegedly suffered. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “[a]

person ‘subjects’ another to deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983,

if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which

he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that th

an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9 Cir. 1998). The SAC fails to satisfy the linking requirement as to Officers Williams th

and Campos and to articulate how a either of them deprived plaintiff of constitutional rights and

resulting harm.

More specifically, the SAC fails to allege how plaintiff’s arrest and incarceration were unlawful

and facts to demonstrate unlawful arrest and incarceration. The SAClacksfacts of denial of due process

or equal protection of law. “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with

intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.”

Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to vex Officers Williams and Campos as arresting officers. Such attempt provides further

grounds to dismiss the SAC.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds

that plaintiff, despite multiple opportunities, has failed to file a complaint to satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and

section 1983 requirements and which does not appear intended to vex police officers. The clerk is

directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 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

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01386-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/07/07 Page 6 of 6