Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02137/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02137-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK BLACKSHIRE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-cv-2137 KJM DAD PS

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SHERIFF,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, Patrick Blackshire, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff previously submitted an incomplete in forma pauperis application and a

deficient first amended complaint in this action. Accordingly, on October 29, 2012, the

undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice,

dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granting plaintiff leave to file a second

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) In that order, plaintiff was instructed that in the event he

elected to file a second amended complaint he could submit a new application to proceed in

forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee.

/////

/////

1

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 7 Filed 02/19/13 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

On November 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) 1

Plaintiff has not filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Unless plaintiff is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

Moreover, even if plaintiff had submitted a complete in forma pauperis

application that made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a determination that a

plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required

by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it

appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’”

Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank

& Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th

Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the

proceeding is without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.”). The court may also dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the

allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it

lacks an arguable basis 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). Under this standard, a court must

dismiss a complaint 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; 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e).

 On November 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a half-page document styled “Amended 1

complaint continued.” (Doc. No. 6.) That documents shares the same defects as plaintiff’s

second amended complaint.

2

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 7 Filed 02/19/13 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

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court

accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg.

Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242,

1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as

true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is deficient in several respects. In this

regard, the minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8. Instead, the

second amended complaint is simply a one-page document, consisting of vague and conclusory

allegations concerning alleged wrongs plaintiff has endured, apparently at the hands of the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and he has failed to

cite any specific date or reference the name of anyone involved in the actions about which he

complains.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint also fails to contain a plain statement of his

claim showing that he is entitled to relief. For example, in the second amended complaint

plaintiff alleges simply that he was subject to “[s]everal incidents of unlawful search and

seizure,” subject to “[u]njust forms of discipline,” and “several times” had his “release day . . .

3

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 7 Filed 02/19/13 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

delayed without due cause.” (Sec. Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 5) at 1.)

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at

555, 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. Under these

standards, a complaint should state identifiable causes of action and allege facts that satisfy the

elements of those causes of action both plainly and succinctly, alleging specific acts engaged in

by the defendant that would support plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed for failure

to state a claim. The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff could file a third

amended complaint that states a cognizable claim that would not be subject to dismissal. “Valid

reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” 

California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir.

1988). See also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276,

1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that, while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not

have to allow futile amendments). In light of the deficiencies in the second amended complaint

noted above, and plaintiff’s failure to successfully amend his complaint when provided the

/////

/////

/////

/////

4

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 7 Filed 02/19/13 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

opportunity to do so, the court finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff further leave to

amend.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 9, 2012 amended complaint (Doc. No. 5) be dismissed

without leave to amend; and

2. This action be closed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 15, 2013.

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\blackshire2137.dwolta.f&rs

 The court also notes that the defects found in plaintiff’s second amended complaint 2

were also present in his first amended complaint and that the court advised plaintiff of these

defects in the October 29, 2012 order dismissing the first amended complaint with leave to

amend.

5

Case 2:12-cv-02137-KJM-DAD Document 7 Filed 02/19/13 Page 5 of 5