Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01111-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY PROBATION )

DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1111-AWI-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 2)

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 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

On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

////

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 11
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

 The Court will screen the complaint and any amended complaint that is filed and will issue an order 1

determining that claims against specific defendants have been stated before the Court will direct that the complaint

be served on any defendant.

2

II. Screening the Complaint

A. Legal Standards

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 1

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. Although a complaint need not outline all

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 11
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

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. th

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6 Cir. 1998). th

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, 740

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

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

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

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 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

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 (9 Cir. 1981). th

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.

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 11
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

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

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 (11 Cir. th

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 (8 Cir. 1984). th

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff sues the Fresno County Probation Department and

alleges that he suffered mistakes in unspecified violation of

parole hearing reports, violation attempts before his first

appointment with the probation department, mistakes in an

unspecified minute order and probation stipulation order, two “no

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 11
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

show’s” at court-ordered violation of probation hearings, a

change in probation officer without notice, incarceration on

false charges that probation officers as overseers were

responsible to detect before arrest, and a number of violations

of probation “made outside the probation department itself.” 

C. Jurisdiction

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 (9 Cir. 1982) th

(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 (9 Cir. 1989). th

Rule 8 requires that Plaintiff state a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Plaintiff refers to general negligence and intentional

tort. Plaintiff also refers to the crossing of federal guidelines

by Defendant, a local agency. It does not appear that original

jurisdiction in this Court may be based upon these grounds.

However, Plaintiff also alleges that his civil rights were

violated. The Court will analyze Plaintiff’s complaint as stating

or attempting to state a civil rights claim.

D. Rule 8 Notice Requirement

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,

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 5 of 11
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

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 alleged any specific actions by any

specific persons; no dates, identity of actors, or other details

are given. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim cannot serve to give notice to

any defendant of the substance of his claim. 

E. Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act 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

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 6 of 11
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

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, some of the allegations of the complaint are

uncertain, such as the reference to a number of violations of

probation “made outside the probation department itself.” (Cmplt.

p. 1.) Some of the conduct complained of by Plaintiff is not

alleged to have resulted in any deprivation of federally

protected rights, such as violations before a first appointment,

mistakes in unspecified minute orders and stipulated orders,

failures of probation personnel to appear at hearings regarding

violation of probation, and a change in the identity of the

probation officer without notice.

Although the complaint is unclear and devoid of factual

context, other conduct mentioned in the complaint might have

resulted in an some deprivation, such as mistakes in unspecified

violation of probation hearing reports and incarceration on false

charges that probation officers as overseers were responsible to

detect before arrest. However, as previously noted, these

allegations are not sufficiently specific to give notice of the

claim.

F. Defendant Fresno County Probation Department

It is essential for the Plaintiff to link a named defendant

with an affirmative act or omission resulting in a deprivation of

rights. In this regard, Plaintiff has named the Fresno County

Probation Department as the defendant. A county is a person for

the purposes of § 1983. Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 7 of 11
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

1439, 1443 (9 Cir. 1989) However, Plaintiff does not allege th

facts concerning any conduct engaged in by that entity. The Court

notes that a local governmental unit may not be held responsible

for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory

of liability; a county could be liable for its own actions in the

nature of policy or customs, factual circumstances which

Plaintiff has not alleged. See, Bd. of County Commissioners v.

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Further, Plaintiff has failed to

link the named defendant with some affirmative act or omission.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating a

claim against the Probation Department, and Plaintiff’s complaint

must be dismissed with leave to amend.

G. Status of Probation Violation

In seeking damages and in seeking to have this Court “clear”

his probation and reinstate his rights (Cmplt. p. 1), Plaintiff

is necessarily still claiming that the procedure leading to his

probation violation was invalid and thus that the violation

itself was invalid. The validity of the revocation of probation

is implicated by Plaintiff’s challenge. Plaintiff’s civil claim

for damages thus amounts to a collateral attack on his probation

violation and subsequent incarceration. Such an attack is not

permitted by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, and Edwards

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-48 (1997). Butterfield v. Bail, 120

F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9 Cir. 1997); see, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 th

U.S. 74, 80-81 (2005). Thus, Plaintiff’s civil rights claim for

the relief stated (as distinct from some injunctive relief) does

not accrue unless and until the probation violation is reversed,

expunged, or otherwise invalidated by habeas corpus. 

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 8 of 11
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

H. Immunity

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain, it is possible

that Plaintiff will be able to state specific facts in an amended

complaint. It appears that Plaintiff is seeking to hold probation

officers liable for errors in a report, or for arresting and

holding him in custody for the purpose of investigation regarding

a probation violation. In that regard, the Court notes that it

has been held that probation officers have absolute judicial

immunity for preparing reports for the use of state courts

because in performing that function, they are serving a function

integral to the independent judicial process. Demoran v. Witt,

781 F.2d 155, 156-7 (9 Cir. 1985). It has also been held that a th

probation officer performing administrative or investigative

tasks may be entitled to only qualified immunity. See, Ray v.

Pickett, 734 F.2ed 370, 373 (9 Cir. 1984). th

III. Amendment of the Complaint

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim against the defendants and has failed to plead

facts demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. 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

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 9 of 11
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

10

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. 

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend;

and

3) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service

of this order to file an 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

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 10 of 11
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

11

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: September 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01111-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 09/15/06 Page 11 of 11