Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07595/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07595-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-07595-KAW 

SCREENING ORDER REVIEWING 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; ORDER 

GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION; ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Archibald Cunningham filed this civil action and application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Since Plaintiff was previously found to be vexatious, his complaint 

was subject to a prefiling order. While his complaint included some of the same parties and claims 

covered by the prefiling review order, the district court found that it also included parties and 

certain claims that were arguably outside its scope, so, on November 20, 2018, the court granted 

leave to proceed on the new complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.)1

Having considered the application, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

and, for the reasons set forth below, concludes that the operative complaint is deficient.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

 

1 This case was not opened until December 19, 2018.

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 8 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 

defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the 

complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to 

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010)(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be 

given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th 

Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-

31 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. DISCUSSION

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure 

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue 

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction 

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens 

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 8 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff appears to be alleging various civil rights violations against many of the 

same individuals he sued in an earlier civil rights matter. See Compl., Cunningham v. Singer, No. 

14-cv-03250-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2014), ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, however, fails to identify 

which specific facts give rise to each cause of action. Instead, Plaintiff incorporates all proceeding 

paragraphs, which is improper. Moreover, many of the facts appear to be background facts, 

because the conduct described either occurred outside the statute of limitations period and/or 

appears to have been the subject of prior litigation. This makes it impossible to ascertain which 

facts pertain to each cause of action, and whether some or all of the causes of action are barred by 

res judicata. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is insufficient to satisfy Section 1915 

review.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thus, Plaintiff must clearly provide the legal and factual basis for 

all claims, and must do so by filing an amended complaint by March 8, 2019. If Plaintiff fails to

file an amended complaint by that date, or the amended complaint fails to cure all defects, the case 

will be reassigned to a district judge with the report and recommendation that either the complaint 

be dismissed in whole or in part or the case be dismissed in its entirety. 

In amending the complaint, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s 

Help Desk for assistance—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982 to make 

an appointment. While the Help Desk does not provide legal representation, a licensed attorney 

may assist Plaintiff in determining whether there are viable claims, and how to properly plead 

them.

Plaintiff may also wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants 

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 8 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available 

online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. 

Additionally, the case management conference scheduled on February 19, 2019 is 

continued to May 21, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., Courtroom 4, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 8 Filed 02/06/19 Page 4 of 4