Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00490-1/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

1

 Plaintiff states that he expects to be released from prison on June 16, 2006. It appears from an exhibit to

the complaint that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated because of a separate matter involving a violation of parole.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLIN MONROE, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, )

at al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00490-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (DOC. 1)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner1 who is proceeding pro se with

an action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration and attachments that

make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly,

the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 9
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 The filing fee for civil actions is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914, as

amended effective April 8, 2006. Pub. L. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, February 8,

2006.

2

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to

pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.2 No

initial partial filing fee will be assessed by this Court. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the

appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from

Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income

credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will

be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until

the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Screening the Complaint

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738,

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 9
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

7403(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light

most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s

favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

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

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

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

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 9
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

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir.

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 24, 2006. Plaintiff

alleges that after he suffered a collision with a car while he

was riding his motorcycle on July 29, 2005, Plaintiff was

thereafter cited and released for reckless driving and driving

without insurance. Plaintiff states that the defendants are the

California Highway Patrol, Modesto paramedics, ambulance driver, 

driver of the car which hit Plaintiff, the driver’s insurance

company, the hospital to which Plaintiff was transported, and

Plaintiff’s insurance company, although no parties are actually

identified by name except for the California Highway Patrol. No

conduct on the part of any defendant is detailed; Plaintiff

states that everyone involved after the wreck was worse than the

wreck itself. The relief that Plaintiff seeks is for this Court

to file the civil claim (it is unclear whether Plaintiff is

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 4 of 9
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

5

referring to a civil lawsuit for recovery of damages or other

relief for the injuries he sustained in the accident, or a claim

against a governmental entity that is a prerequisite to

instituting a civil suit). There are no facts alleged that would

support an inference that Plaintiff is unable to submit for

filing either a claim or a lawsuit. Although Plaintiff refers to

a criminal proceeding related to the accident, it does not appear

that Plaintiff is seeking any relief with respect to that

proceeding, which apparently has not resulted in a conviction.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must 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 the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has not stated any facts indicating that

this Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff describes injuries for

which state tort law might provide compensation; however,

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

Plaintiff states no facts that would place jurisdiction in a

federal court over what appears to be an essentially state law

claim.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; this

Court has a duty to determine its own subject matter

jurisdiction, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be

raised on the Court’s own motion at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3); CSIBI v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1982)

(citing City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-512 (1973)).

A federal court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action

where it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Billingsley

v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, there are

no facts stated that would place jurisdiction in this Court.

Further, Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to give

any defendant notice of the basis for Plaintiff’s claim for

relief against a defendant. Although Plaintiff’s complaint is

written on a civil rights complaint form, it does not state a

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed

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.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.

1986). The statute plainly requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the

deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, (1978);

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held

that "[a] person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative

acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Here, there are no facts indicating that any defendant

engaged in conduct that resulted in any deprivation of

Plaintiff’s rights, acted under color of state law, or deprived

Plaintiff of any rights secured by federal law. Plaintiff has not

stated any facts indicating any entitlement to relief from this

Court.

Because Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief

may be granted, the complaint must be dismissed. However, it is

possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent

with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that

would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of

this complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in

dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

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 the defendants engaged in that

support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

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 original pleading 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.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis IS GRANTED; Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory

filing fee of $350.00 for this action; Plaintiff is not assessed

an initial partial filing fee; all fees shall be collected and

paid in accordance with this Court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections filed concurrently herewith;

and

2. Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED; and

3. Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

service of this order to file a first amended complaint that

complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law,

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 "First Amended Complaint"; 

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order

of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 06/08/06 Page 9 of 9