Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

JEREMY BENSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV 10-0124 JAM EFB PS

vs.

DAVIS ENTERPRISE NEWSPAPER;

FOY S. MCNAUGHTON; R. BURT 

MCNAUGHTON; DEBBIE DAVIS;

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). By

separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the

appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time

if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/10 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

2

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

defendant. 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if

it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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). A pro se plaintiff must

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule

8(a)(2) requires a complaint to plead “factual content that allows the court to draw reasonable

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). This plausibility requirement is “not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but is asks for

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

Upon review of the complaint, it appears that plaintiff has not identified proper

defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff improperly seeks to sue Davis Enterprise

Newspaper; Foy S. McNaughton, its President and Chief Executive Officer; R. Burt

McNaughton, its publisher; and Debbie Davis, its assistant publisher and editor, all pursuant to

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/10 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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to state a claim under this section, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the

violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed

by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Plaintiff alleges that the named defendants unlawfully ran a story in their newspaper that racially

profiled him. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege that the defendants were state actors or that they

were otherwise acting under color of law. See Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192

F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (The party charged with a constitutional deprivation under § 1983

must be a person who may fairly be said to be a governmental actor) (citation and quotations

omitted). Section “1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how

discriminatory or wrong.” Id. (citing American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50

(1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, plaintiff fails to identify the

constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated, or explain how their actions resulted in

the deprivation of any constitutional right. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed. However, plaintiff is granted leave to

file an amended complaint and name proper governmental actors, if any can properly be listed as

defendants. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts

must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their

complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he shall identify each

defendant in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint, and clearly set forth the

allegations against each such defendant. He shall also specify a basis for this court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. 

Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself. 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). Accordingly, once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/10 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

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended

complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

DATED: April 22, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00124-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/10 Page 4 of 4