Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02588/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02588-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY LEE EWING,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-2588 WBS GGH PS

vs.

DEPT. OF THE ARMY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On March 16, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact

are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the entire record in light of

the applicable legal standards. Plaintiff’s two page document

Case 2:05-cv-02588-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 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

2

entitled “wrongful termination,” containing a self-styled caption

on page one listing the parties and a single paragraph on page

two, was construed by the magistrate judge and by this court as a

complaint. In the magistrate judge’s order of January 10, 2006,

plaintiff was advised that complaints are required to set forth

(1) the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a

short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to

relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8

requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on

notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d

795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff was also informed of the reasons why his

complaint does not meet these requirements. First, there is no

allegation of the basis for jurisdiction. The complaint states

simply that this is “a federal question.” Simply naming the

Departments of the Army and Air Force, and claiming wrongful

termination because of a mental disability, without identifying

the federal right granting subject matter jurisdiction, however,

does not meet the pleading requirements. Plaintiff was informed

that the court will not turn itself into an advocate for

plaintiff. Second, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are

so vague that the court is unable to determine whether the

current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of

the claim, but the statement in the complaint is too short and

concise. It states simply that “[plaintiff] was wrongfully

Case 2:05-cv-02588-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 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

3

terminated because of a mental disability.” This statement fails

to give fair notice to the defendants and does not state the

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.Community

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Third, the

complaint does not contain the necessary statement showing

entitlement to relief.

All of the above was thoroughly explained to plaintiff

in meticulous detail in the magistrate judge’s order of January

10, 2006, and plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended

complaint to cure these defects. The thirty days have now

passed, and plaintiff has not even attempted to file any amended

complaint. Accordingly, the court must assume that the original

complaint filed December 21, 2005 is the best that plaintiff can

present. For the reasons which were explained in detail to him

in the magistrate judge’s order of January 10, 2006 that

complaint is legally deficient and the court cannot permit him to

go forward in this action on the basis of it.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be, and the

same hereby is, dismissed. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal.

1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: April 25, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-02588-WBS-GGH Document 6 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 3