Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02225/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02225-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2225 GEB EFB PS

vs.

RIO CITY CAFÉ,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete affidavit in support of her application to proceed in

forma pauperis. Plaintiff did not fully answer Questions No. 2b (which requires applicant to

state the name and address of her last employer and the amount of her take-home salary or wages

and pay period), and No. 3 (although plaintiff indicated that she receives money from “disability

or workers compensation payments,” “gifts or inheritances,” and “pensions, annuities or life

insurance payments,” she failed to describe each source of money, the amount received, and the

amount she expects to continue to receive). Finally, in response to Question No. 4, plaintiff

wrote that she has $7,500.00 in cash, checking or savings accounts, but does not explain why this

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

money cannot be used to pay the required filing fee. 

Plaintiff’s incomplete application fails fully to inform the court whether plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor, and thus fails to meets the requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s application is denied without prejudice. Within

thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may file a complete application for this court’s

further consideration. 

The determination whether or not plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to

dismiss the case at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against an immune defendant. 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a pro so plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will

not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level

on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Upon review of the complaint, the court has determined that it fails to comply with Rule

8. In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests and a demand for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

The complaint fails to meet any of these requirements.

////

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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 court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court is a

court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution

and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic

federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and

“diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint

(1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within

the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized by a federal statute

that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369

U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically

allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the matter in controversy exceeds

$75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546,

552 (9th Cir. 1987). 

A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless demonstrated

otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at

any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc.,

93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the complaint contains no reference to a federal cause of action, nor do its

allegations invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that an individual named

Mario Armstrong is an employee of Rio City Café, and that this individual “broke into

[plaintiff’s] house,” but also that she let him live with her for two weeks. See Compl., p.1. The

remaining allegations in the complaint are similarly vague and confusing, and none of them are

sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, let alone state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. However, the court will grant plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she is informed that the court cannot

refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 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

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. 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 ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file both a

complete application to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint that establishes

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and states a claim for which relief may be granted. 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;

and,

4. Failure to file either a complete in forma pauperis application or an amended

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

dismissed.

DATED: October 31, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 4