Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00869-1/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

1

 In the interim, plaintiff filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, which was dismissed, and a request that this action be transferred to the Superior

Court. This court has no power to transfer an action to state court.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEAL MCCAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 05-0869 WBS GGH PS

vs.

D.H.H.S., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). By order of June 15, 2005,

the complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint. In that

order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an

amended complaint.1

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 11/23/05 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

 Neither does it comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of pleadings. 

2

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff 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 its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

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 amended complaint now names “D.H.H.S. and C.P.S. and SCAN” as

defendants. Plaintiff alleges that her daughter was taken away from her by the juvenile court

without proper notice of her rights, and in violation of the equal protection and due process

clauses of the constitution. She further alleges that she was discriminated against in the process

based on her race. 

The amended complaint now alleges grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, but still

does not contain a demand for relief, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.2 Rule 8 sets forth general

rules of pleading for the Federal Courts. Rule 8(a) requires complaints to include: (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 relief. The amended complaint does not meet

the last of these requirements. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 11/23/05 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

The Eleventh Amendment precludes actions against an unconsenting state or an

arm of the state. See, e.g., Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene, 521 U.S. 261, 167-68, 117 S. Ct. 2028, 2034

(1997); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 70-72, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1131 (1996). 

Accordingly, this federal civil rights action against the Department of Health and Human

Services is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-67, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2309-10 (1989); Austin v. State Industrial Insurance

System, 939 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1991) (“central concern is whether a judgment against the

entity named as a defendant would impact the state treasury”); O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d

749, 750 (9th Cir. 1982) (Nevada state courts and agencies immune). 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

A claim under this section 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, 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988). 

The amended complaint fails to state a claim against either Child Protective

Services or the Department of Health and Human Services. Assuming arguendo these entities

are appropriate “persons,” the complaint fails to state a claim against them because there is no

allegation that the action inflicting injury flowed from either an explicitly adopted or a tacitly

authorized governmental policy. See Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691,

98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978); Ortiz v. Washington Cty., 88 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff will be given one more opportunity to amend her complaint. Plaintiff is

informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 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.

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 11/23/05 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

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. 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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended complaint is

dismissed, with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days from the date of

service of this order. Failure to file a second amended complaint will result in a recommendation

that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 11/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Mccain869.amd.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4