Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00031/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARRY FRANCIS DURDEN, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIEANN FEINSTEIN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-0031 TLN GGH PS 

ORDER 

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 this court by Local Rule 

302(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 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). 

 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 02/08/16 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 

27 

28 

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 

S.Ct. 1955). “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.” 

Id. 

 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 

S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

 The complaint is vague, rambling and incoherent. It alleges “unjust enrichment and stolen 

published work of cleaning up Tahoe Basin 1995” and seems to involve a murder, a wildfire, and 

misappropriation of a published proposal, among other torts. For example, the introduction to the 

complaint states: “42 USCA 1983 and 18 USCA 241 UCC9-317(a) (d) made (p) dance to (d) 

unjust enrichment without notice, what (d) would do with what (d) had in (d) possession (p) 

proposal and contract (d) used without permission from (p) see (People v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 47 

Cal. Rptr. 700, 708 (Ct. App. 1965); (d) made (p) loose wages and (p) had to go looking for those 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 02/08/16 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 

27 

28 

3

responsible for (p) roommates murder homicide.... ” Ultimately, the complaint is 

incomprehensible. 

 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. The 

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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 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. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in this action being dismissed. 

 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). Further, plaintiff must 

demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal 

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 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 Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

the original pleading no longer serves an operative 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 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 02/08/16 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 

27 

28 

4

 3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eight (28) days from the date of service of this order to file 

an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint 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; failure to file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: February 8, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Durden0031.14 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 4