Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00303/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., DBA 

SHEETMETAL & ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-00303-JAM-CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 

to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

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

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00303-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 02/18/20 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

27

28

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

court has determined that the complaint does not 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 defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s 

claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 

the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended 

complaint.

////

Case 2:20-cv-00303-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 02/18/20 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

27

28

3

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must also set forth the jurisdictional 

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). As 

pled, it does not appear the court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. If plaintiff is attempting 

to establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff’s state citizenship must be diverse from the named 

defendant. See, e.g., Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989)

(explaining that “[w]hen a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the 

plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face 

dismissal”). 

Plaintiff is also informed that he cannot represent his company, Sheetmetal & Associates. 

The right to represent oneself pro se is personal to the plaintiff and does not extend to other 

parties. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Russell v. 

United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona has no 

authority to represent anyone other than himself.”). To the extent plaintiff is attempting to 

represent Sheetmetal & Associates, the rules are clear that an entity may appear only by an 

attorney. See Local Rule 183(a). Unlicensed laypersons, including the owners of companies, 

officers of a corporation, partners of a partnership, and members of an association may not 

represent their entities “pro se.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory 

Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . 

that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel . . . . [T]hat rule 

applies equally to all artificial entities.”); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 

F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). In this regard, “the law is clear that a corporation can be 

represented only by a licensed attorney.” In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, plaintiff cannot assert any claim on behalf of Sheetmetal & Associates. If plaintiff 

chooses to amend his complaint, he is ordered to file it on behalf of himself only as an individual 

and without the use of “Esq.” after his name, which is consistent with federal rules and this 

court’s local rules. Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has 

resulted in a deprivation of his rights, not Sheetmetal & Associates’ rights. 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00303-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 02/18/20 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

27

28

4

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 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 request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed; 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 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 “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the 

amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result 

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: February 18, 2020

15 murphy303.ifp-lta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00303-JAM-CKD Document 3 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 4