Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00836-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DESIREE PETERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-836-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1

 Her 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must 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. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.2

 

 1

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

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2

 Plaintiff has also filed requests for an extension of time to serve defendants (ECF Nos. 4 

& 8). and for permission to electronically file documents with the court (ECF Nos. 6 & 9). 

Case 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 5
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 

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

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[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). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint3 fails to state a claim and fails to comply with Rule 

8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it must be dismissed with leave to 

amend. The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that this action arises out of the removal of 

plaintiff’s children from her custody. ECF No. 7 at 7. But rather than provide “a short and plaint 

 

Because plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, defendants do not 

need to be served at this time. Plaintiff’s requests to file electronically are denied pursuant to 

Local Rule 133(a), which provides that pro se parties, such as plaintiff, shall file and serve paper 

documents. 

3

 Plaintiff has submitted two amended complaints prior to screening. The court herein 

screens the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. 

Case 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 5
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 

statement of the” claims, the 39-page complaint consists almost exclusively of legal conclusions 

that neither demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to relief nor provide fair notice to the fifteen 

defendants of the claims asserted against them. Plaintiff alleges that Sacramento County Sheriff 

Scott Jones “refused to discipline his Deputies and failed to investigate properly by refusing all 

allegations and ignoring evidence.” Id. at 8. But she does not identify the incident that should 

have been investigated or specify the evidence that was ignored. Nor does she explain how 

Sheriff Jones’s conduct harmed her. She also claims defendants have conspired and colluded 

with other parties to: serve a “fraudulent Unlawful Detainer;” implement a “Plan of action” for 

the removal of her children; withhold resources from her “HOME AND EQUITY;” and to 

“withhold all familial rights. Id. at 10-11. 

Additionally, it appears plaintiff seeks to asserts claims on behalf of her minor child. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 1 at 16 (alleging defendants “deprived minor plaintiff K of her freedom of 

movement by the use of physical barriers, fraud, menace, deceit, And [sic] unreasonable 

duress.”). But there is no indication from the record that Ms. Peterson is an attorney. Unless she 

is an attorney she may not represent the interest of her minor child, and may not sign pleadings on 

the minor child’s behalf. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very 

pleading, written motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record in the 

attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 

In addition, Local Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing herself without an 

attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not delegate 

that duty to any other individual. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). Accordingly, Ms. Meyer may not bring 

claims on behalf of her child. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 877 (9th Cir. 

1997) (a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for another, and general power of 

attorney does not give non-lawyer right to assert the personal constitutional claims of another). 

For these reasons plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint 

must allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant(s) and include sufficient facts in 

support of that cognizable legal theory. Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the 

Case 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 5
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 

amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify 

a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. An amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s 

claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in doublespaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of 

California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings 

to delineate each claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as 

required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 

 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 

make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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. 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). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s requests to file electronically (ECF Nos. 6 & 9) are denied. 

 3. Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to complete service of process (ECF Nos. 4 

& 8) are denied. 

 4. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided 

herein. 

 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 

Case 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/19/20 Page 4 of 5
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 

be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 

DATED: February 19, 2020. 

 

Case 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/19/20 Page 5 of 5