Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02936/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02936-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PEOPLE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 5]

Plaintiff Derrick Jones, proceeding pro se, has filed a First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”).1(Docket No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the 

FAC without leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

An IFP complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines 

that it 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.” The sua 

 

1 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, but sua 

sponte dismissed his Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3
2

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

The Court previously sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because 

Plaintiff had not named any defendants and relied on California Penal Code provisions, 

there was no basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court also speculated 

that Plaintiff might be trying to challenge a state court criminal conviction because the 

Complaint identified “the People” as the defendant.

Plaintiff now seems to be asserting violations of constitutional rights, but they are 

being asserted on behalf of another person, Gary L. Peavy. San Diego police detectives 

and three additional individuals, one of which seems to have been Peavy’s attorney, are 

named as defendants. As to each, Plaintiff claims they fabricated evidence, provided 

false reports, provided false testimony, or as to the attorney, failed to call relevant 

witnesses at trial or investigate facts in the 2002-2005 time frame. However, as to each, 

the FAC states, “Violating Gary L. Peavy” followed Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment 

rights. For example, as to Defendant Pettitt, the FAC alleges he “provided false 

testimony in trial on 5/26/2006 in San Diego Superior Court Dept. 49. Under Color of 

State Law. Violating GARY L. PEAVY Due Process Fifth Amendment Constitutional 

Rights to fair Trial.” The FAC additionally alleges counsel failed to properly investigate

matters that would have undermined witnesses at trial. It goes on to say if he had “no 

reasonable judge or jury would have convicted the petitioner who are [sic] actually 

innocent.” It appears the petitioner is Gary Peavy. Additionally, the attachments to the 

FAC all concern Gary L. Peavy. There is nothing in the filing other than Derrick Jones’ 

name and signature that appears to have anything to do with Jones.2

 

2 The Court notes that a Gary L. Peavy filed a Complaint that is almost identical to the 

initial Complaint filed by Derrick Jones in this case, including the same attachments —

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3
3

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

Not only does the FAC lack any explanation how Peavy’s constitutional rights 

were violated or why those claims would not be barred by a statute of limitations (having 

occurred more than 10 years ago), but it attempts to seek relief for violation of someone 

else’s constitutional rights. Jones has failed to state a claim for relief and the Court finds 

the claims frivilous. Given the Court can see no way Jones could amend to state a claim 

for events occurring more than ten years ago to someone else, the case is DISMISSED 

without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED without leave to 

amend. For all the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an appeal of this Order 

would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

 

all concerning Gary Peavy — in Peavy v. The People, Case No. 15CV2940 BAS (BGS). 

The case also identified the same defendants as named in Jones’ FAC in this case. 

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3