Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01848-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE K. CLARKE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1848 GEB JFM P

vs.

REGGARO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed an initial pleading

on the form for a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons set forth below, ruling

on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred at this time. This proceeding

was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 2:07-cv-01848-GEB -JFM Document 7 Filed 12/19/07 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

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either 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). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim 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. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘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.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, id. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson

v. Pardus, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, slip op. at 7-8, in turn quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id., and construe

the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

(1974). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has determined that the complaint does not 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

Case 2:07-cv-01848-GEB -JFM Document 7 Filed 12/19/07 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

3

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

defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court

will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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. 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that challenges to a conviction or term of

imprisonment that has not been set aside are not cognizable in a federal civil rights action. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Challenges to plaintiff’s conviction or term of

imprisonment must be raised, if at all, in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case 2:07-cv-01848-GEB -JFM Document 7 Filed 12/19/07 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

4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Ruling on plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

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

amended pleading that complies either with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act or the

federal habeas corpus statute, as well as with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local

Rules of Practice; the amended pleading must bear the docket number assigned this case and

must be labeled as an amended pleading; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the

amended pleading; failure to file an amended pleading in accordance with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a form civil rights complaint

and accompanying instructions and a form habeas corpus petition and accompanying

instructions.

DATED: December 18, 2007.

12

clar1848.14

Case 2:07-cv-01848-GEB -JFM Document 7 Filed 12/19/07 Page 4 of 4