Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01047-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WHITFIELD, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

JOSEFINA SANDOVAL, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-01047-AWI-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 11)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER (DOC. 10)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration and attachments that

make the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request

to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a).

II. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 8
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

The Court will screen the complaint and any amended complaint that is 1

filed and will issue an order determining that claims against specific

defendants have been stated before the Court will direct that the complaint be

served on any defendant.

2

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal 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. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).1

A. Screening Standard 

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

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (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. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must 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 the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 8
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

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. th

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6 Cir. 1998). th

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 8
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

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that his action is authorized by 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692(g), which is part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Section 1692g concerns debt

collection practices by debt collectors. Plaintiff alleges that

on or about June or July 2006, Defendant (sic) filed and served

Plaintiff a three-day notice to pay rent or quit, allegedly in

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 8
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 The Court understands Plaintiff’s reference to § 1592(g), a nonexistent section, to be intended to refer to § 2

1692g.

5

violation of § 1692 , which requires the extension of thirty days 2

notice to a debtor to dispute all or portions of a debt.

Plaintiff refers to case law concerning a three-day rent demand

notice, but Plaintiff does not state any further facts.

Title 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) defines a “debt collector” as

follows:

(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who

uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the

mails in any business the principal purpose of which is

the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects

or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of

the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes

any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own

debts, uses any name other than his own which would

indicate that a third person is collecting or

attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of

section 1692f(6) of this title, such term also includes

any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate

commerce or the mails in any business the principal

purpose of which is the enforcement of security

interests. The term does not include–

(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while,

in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such

creditor;

(B) any person while acting as a debt collector

for another person, both of whom are related by common

ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the

person acting as a debt collector does so only for

persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if

the principal business of such person is not the

collection of debts;

(C) any officer or employee of the United States

or any State to the extent that collecting or

attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of

his official duties;

(D) any person while serving or attempting to

serve legal process on any other person in connection

with the judicial enforcement of any debt;

(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the

request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer

credit counseling and assists consumers in the

liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from

such consumers and distributing such amounts to

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

creditors; and

(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect

any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due

another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental

to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide

escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was

originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which

was not in default at the time it was obtained by such

person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person

as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction

involving the creditor.

Plaintiff has not alleged facts reflecting that either of

the named Defendants, Josefina Sandoval and Martha Martinez,

constitute debt collectors within the meaning of the statute.

Further, Plaintiff has not set forth facts concerning the debt or

the contents of the “Three-Day notice to pay rent or quit,” other

than the quoted brief description of the notice. Thus, it is not

clear what information the notice actually contained and whether

or not it is covered by the statutory scheme. 

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim against the defendants and has failed to plead

facts demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is

possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent

with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that

would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of

this complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in

dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

A complaint must 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

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

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 the defendants engaged in that

support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

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 15-220 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.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis IS GRANTED; and

2) Plaintiff's first amended complaint IS DISMISSED with

leave to amend; 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 pertinent substantive law, 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 "Second Amended Complaint"; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will be considered to be

a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01047-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 07/30/07 Page 8 of 8