Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03276/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03276-0/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

RICHARD LOUIS BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEIU LOCAL 1000, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-3276-DJC-JDP (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants SEIU Local 1000, Service Employees 

International Union, and the California State Employees Association, alleging defendants violated 

his rights by improperly removing him from his position as president of SEIU Local 1000. As 

articulated, the complaint fails to put defendants on notice of the specific claims against them, and 

so does not comply with the federal rules. I will give plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint 

that better explains the factual basis for his claims. I will also grant his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 

(2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

Case 2:24-cv-03276-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 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

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

The complaint contains limited allegations that are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth 

Amendments by removing him as president of SEIU Local 1000. ECF No. 1 at 5. 

He contends that the removal decision was racially motivated and violated his rights to free 

speech and equal protection. Id. He also claims that he was denied his right “to have his lawsuit 

heard by a requested jury trial” and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by 

being ordered “to pay an Anti-Slapp award that violated his freedom of speech . . . .” Id.

Case 2:24-cv-03276-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 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

These allegations are too vague and conclusory to provide defendants with adequate

notice of the factual basis for each of plaintiff’s claims. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 

F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”) (quotations omitted). 

More fundamentally, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim for violation of his 

constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show 

that a defendant acting under color of state law caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured 

by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). 

“The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the defendant in a 

§ 1983 action have exercised power ‘possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only

because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). Plaintiff’s complaint 

contains no allegations suggesting defendants are state actors. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 

plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If 

plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current 

one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means 

that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior 

pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no 

longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will 

need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The 

amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 

number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be 

dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend.

Case 2:24-cv-03276-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 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

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03276-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4