Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01496-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ALCALA FARIAS, CASE NO. CV F-05-1496 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

DEPUTY LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Manuel Alcala Farias (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this apparent

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed several

combined papers which this Court construed as a complaint (“complaint”). The complaint’s apparent

caption lists Deputies Lewis, Ochoa and Castillo (collectively “defendants”) as defendants but failed to

identify their employing law enforcement agency. The complaint appeared to take issue with the arrest

of and criminal proceedings against plaintiff’s wife. The complaint appeared to make vague references

to an attack.

This Court issued its November 30, 2005 order to dismiss the complaint based on its numerous

pleading deficiencies, failure to state a cognizable claim and apparent attempt to pursue claims for nonplaintiffs and to vex defendants. In response to the order, plaintiff on December 12, 2005 filed a form

amended complaint (“amended complaint”) which appears to name the same defendants as plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 7
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

original complaint. The amended complaint is as unclear as plaintiff’s original complaint and appears

to take issue with the arrest of plaintiff’s wife. The amended complaint appears to seek return of money

for bail for plaintiff’s family members. In addition, with the amended complaint, plaintiff burdens this

Court’s record with hundreds of pages of impertinent documents.

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal

may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service,

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua th th

sponte dismissal may be made before process is served on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte th

prior to service of process on defendants). 

Since plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid,shall dismiss a case at any time ifthe Court determines the action is frivolous, 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 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2005) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-65. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9 Cir. 1984). A th

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 324. A federal court may 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 test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 7
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

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968, n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex 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);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts 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, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. th

1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether

a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support

claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

The face of the amended complaint reflects deficiencies to prevent plaintiff from offering

evidence to support claims raised in the amended complaint.

General Deficiencies As To Claims

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. 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, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short 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.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 7
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

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need

th

not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these

elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis th

v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading th

policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 (9 Cir. th

1984). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant

engaged in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires a short plain statement of plaintiff’s claim. The amended complaint does

not adequately identify grounds for relief against a particular defendant to satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

The amended complaint fails to provide any defendant fair notice and to state elements of a claim of

plaintiff plainly and succinctly. The majority of the amended complaint appears to address plaintiff’s

wife, who is not a party. The amended complaint fails to tie in facts to justify its apparent requested

relief, that is, return of bail for plaintiff’s familymembers. The pleading deficiencies prevent this Court

from proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies despite

having the opportunity to amend his original complaint.

Section 1983 Deficiencies

The amended complaint refers to section 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under the color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,

any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action

at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress.

To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2) defendants deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Gibson v. United

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. 1986). The amended complaint fails to state colorable claims (or th

any claims for that matter) by plaintiff against defendants. The amended complaint fails to allege

defendants acted under color of state law. The amended complaint points to no constitutional right of

which defendants deprived plaintiff.

Moreover, section 1983 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of defendant and deprivation allegedly suffered. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “[a]

person ‘subjects’ another to deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983,

if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which

he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). The amended complaint fails to satisfy the linking requirement as to th

defendants and to articulate how defendants deprived plaintiff of constitutional rights and resulting harm.

Standing And Real Party In Interest

To highlight the amended complaint’s lack of clarity, the amended complaint appears to address

claims of plaintiff’s wife and/or other family members who are not clearly identified as plaintiffs and

who have neither paid the $250 filing fee nor filed an in forma pauperis application. All documents filed

with this Court must bear the original signature of the filing party or parties. See F.R.Civ.P. 11; Local

Rule 7-131(b). Plaintiff lacks standing and is not a real party in interest to pursue claims for his wife

or other family members.

The constitutional requirements for standing emanate from Article III, section 2 of the United

States Constitution, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over “cases” and “controversies.” Kardules

v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6 Cir. 1996). “It is the responsibility of the complainant th

clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute

and exercise of the court’s remedial powers.” Warth v. Seldin, 430 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975).

To invoke standing, a plaintiff must allege “(a) a particularized injury (b) concretely and demonstrably

resulting from defendant’s action (c) which injury will be redressed by the remedies sought.” Bowker

v. Morton, 541 F.2d 1347, 1349 (9 Cir. 1976). th

“At an irreducible minimum, Article III requires that the plaintiff show that he has personally

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 5 of 7
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

suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of defendant’s illegal conduct . . . and that the injury

‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’”

Fair v. United States Envir. Protection Agency, 795 F.2d 851, 853 (9 Cir. 1986) (citation omitted; th

quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org.,426 U.S. 26, 38, 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 1925

(1975) (standing is a constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies

and absent a showing of standing, an exercise of federal court power would be inconsistent with Article

III limitations)). “Pecuniary injury is a sufficient basis for standing.” Fair, 795 F.2d at 853; see Barlow

v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 163-164, 90 S.Ct. 832, 835-836 (1970). 

Standing and real-party-in-interest questions overlap to the extent they ask whether the plaintiff

has a personal interest in the controversy. Whelan v. Abell, 953 F.2d 663, 672 (D.C.), cert. denied, 506

U.S. 906, 113 S.Ct. 300 (1992). F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) addresses real party in interest and provides in

pertinent part: “ Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” “Rule 17(a)

is designed to ensure that lawsuits are brought in the name of the party possessing the substantive right

at issue.” Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Association v. Klamath Medical Service Bureau, 701 F.2d

1276, 1282 (9 Cir. 1983). F.R.Civ.P. 17(a)’s function “is simply to protect the defendant against [a] th

subsequent action by the party actually entitled to recover, and to insure generally that the judgment will

have its proper effect as res judicata.” F.R.Civ.P. Adv. Comm. Note.

The amended complaint fails to allege facts to demonstrate that plaintiff is a proper party to

invoke judicial resolution of a dispute as to his wife or family members and to exercise this Court’s

remedial powers as to his wife or family members. The amended complaint fails to allege plaintiff

suffered actual or threatened injury as a result of a defendant’s conduct. The amended complaint fails

to establish that plaintiff possesses substantive rights as to his wife or family members.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to take advantage of cost-free filing to vex defendants. The amended complaint reflects

plaintiff’s attempt in other forums to address claims. Such attempt to vex defendants provides further

grounds to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.

/ / /

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 6 of 7
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

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without prejudice on grounds

that the amended complaint fails to: (1) satisfy pleading, standing and real-party-in-interest

requirements; and (2) state a cognizable claim.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than December 29, 2005,

plaintiff may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on the magistrate judge in

compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will then review the

magistrate judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff is admonished not to attempt to file an amended complaint as plaintiff’s recourse

is to object to these findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is further admonished this Court will

strike any papers to attempt to file an amended complaint unless this Court specifically grants

plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01496-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 12/14/05 Page 7 of 7