Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01633-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID PRENATT, No. CIV.S-06-1633 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

G.W. WILLIAMS CO., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

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

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-

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

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that 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

Case 2:06-cv-01633-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 5
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

time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint

fail to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks

appellate review of state court proceedings, presumably in an

unlawful detainer action in which plaintiff was involved. The

complaint specifically prays that this court find null and void a

string of state court decisions which led to plaintiff’s eviction

from his apartment in Sacramento. However, the federal district

court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state court

decisions. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.

Case 2:06-cv-01633-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 California’s personal injury statute of limitations applicable 1

to § 1983 actions changed from one year to two years effective

January 1, 2003. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. 

3

462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415

(1923).

Additionally, plaintiff’s complaint is brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The events apparently complained of arise from

plaintiff’s tenancy during the period 1987 to 1997, with plaintiff’s

eviction occurring on December 5, 1997. Thus, the most recent event

giving rise to this action took place more than eight years prior to

the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. Any § 1983 claim arising from

those events would appear to be untimely under the applicable oneyear statute of limitations. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 1

(9th Cir. 1999)(statute of limitations for § 1983 claim is governed

by period set forth in state tort law for personal injury actions).

Finally, the complaint names at least one Commissioner of

the Sacramento County Superior Court. That defendant, and the

numerous other judicial officers mentioned in the complaint, would

appear to be entitled to absolute judicial immunity with respect to

plaintiff’s claim against them. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9

(1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386

U.S. 547 (1967); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965-68

(9th Cir. 1999); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866-67 (9th Cir.

1992).

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution the court

Case 2:06-cv-01633-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 5
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

will grant leave to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses

to amend the complaint, he must set forth the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must

include clear and concise factual allegations describing the events

which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

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 15-220 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

initial complaint 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. Any amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary

factual description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01633-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. Plaintiff must

file an original and two copies of the amended complaint.

DATED: December 20, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\prenatt1633.ifp.lta

Case 2:06-cv-01633-GEB-DAD Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 5