Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812-0/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

PATRICK L. SIMONS, SR. )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROBERT SYDNEY JULIAN, M.D., et)

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00812-OWW-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO PLAINTIFF TO

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER (DOC. 1) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages concerning alleged medical malpractice and

related tortious conduct. 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.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 21, 2005; on the same

date he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which

has been granted by separate order. Service of the summons and

complaint has not been ordered because screening of the complaint

has not been completed; service will not be ordered until a

complaint stating facts showing a basis for jurisdiction in this

Court has been filed.

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

I. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

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).

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

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

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

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

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

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 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

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 (9th Cir. 1981).

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

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

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

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

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 (11th Cir.

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 (8th Cir. 1984).

Here, Plaintiff seeks damages according to proof; no

specific amount of damages is stated. Plaintiff alleges that

while under the care of Defendants Julian and Tabari, a dentist

and trainee, respectively, Plaintiff suffered injury from a

negligently performed tooth extraction and from Defendants’

related intentional and negligent misrepresentations. Defendant

University Medical Center is named as the site of the conduct and

is described as a hospital organized and existing under the laws

of the state of California. 

Plaintiff has not provided a short, plain statement of the

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

facts on which the jurisdiction of this Court depends. Plaintiff

has not alleged the denial of any federally protected right or

other facts indicating that there is jurisdiction in this Court.

Further, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the

citizenship of the parties is diverse and that the amount in

controversy is such that the Court might have subject matter

jurisdiction. 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed on a tort

theory, concerning either intentional or negligent conduct by

medical care providers in the course of his treatment, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff states a state law claim and not a

federal claim. Plaintiff does not state facts indicating that

this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States and thus confers jurisdiction on this Court. 

Although Plaintiff here has not alleged facts demonstrating

that this action arises under federal law or is subject to

federal jurisdiction, it is possible that Plaintiff might allege

such facts, so leave to amend will be granted.

II. Amendment of the Complaint

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

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.

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.

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED; and

2. 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 "First Amended Complaint";

Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 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

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 Rule 11-110 and will

result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 06/24/05 Page 7 of 7