Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00987/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00987-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

27

28

- 1 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON ALLEN SPRAGGINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-0987 - IEG (WVG)

ORDER DISMISSING 

vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF

GEORGIA; STATE OF ARKANSAS;

RUSSELL L. CRISP; NICOLE GIRARD;

EVELYN WILLIAMS; and JUDGE

WILLIAM F. MORSE,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 6, 2011, alleging his civil rights were violated. 

[Doc. No. 1.] Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. On May 19, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, 

sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint. [Doc. No. 3.] Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 13, 2011. 

[Doc. No. 4.] After careful review, and for the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES

WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s FAC.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 3
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 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 3.]

II. INITIAL SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted” or is “ frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any

constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction,” there is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative

may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, in connection with state court proceedings relating to child support, Plaintiff seeks

monetary damages and a recalculation of payments due. See FAC. Plaintiff has sued each of the

individual Defendants in his or her official capacity, and purports to sue each Defendant in his or

her individual capacity as well. Id.

Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent he

seeks relief from a final state court judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief. See Noel

v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars direct

and de facto appeals from final state court judgments). Even if the Court had jurisdiction,

Plaintiff’s FAC would be subject to dismissal to the extent he seeks monetary damages from any

state or state official acting in his or her official capacity. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (Absent a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, neither states

nor state officials, acting in their official capacities, are subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 in federal court). Finally, although Plaintiff purports to assert claims against individual

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 3
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 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

Defendants acting in their individual capacities, his FAC fails to allege any facts to suggest any of

the individual defendants violated his constitutional or statutory rights.

Under the circumstances, permitting Plaintiff to amend his FAC would be futile because

“amendment would not cure the deficiencies in the complaint.” Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912

F.2d 291, 296-97 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s FAC.

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s FAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 3