Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01752/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

ENESI MISAALEFUA, CASE NO. CV F 06-1752 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.

UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Enesi Misaalefua (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on December

5, 2006, filed an untitled document which this Court construes as a complaint (“complaint”) against the

United States Postal Service. The complaint lacks a caption and appears to be an attachment to an

administrative form. The complaint addresses plaintiff’s discrimination claims arising from his

probationary letter carrier employment.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01752-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 5
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

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). 

This Court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s action at any time if the 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 (2006) Attacking the

Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. 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.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01752-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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 complaint’s face reflects jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies to prevent plaintiff from

offering evidence to proceed on his claims.

Subject Matter Jurisdictional

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter

jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States Constitution and

Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct.

1673, 1677 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). Federal courts

are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests

upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; 114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9 Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more th

jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without

jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9 Cir. 1988). th

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.

. . .

Case 1:06-cv-01752-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 5
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

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

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

The complaint alleges neither grounds for nor facts to support this Court’s jurisdiction. The

complaint reveals no grounds to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

Pleading Deficiencies

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. 

The complaint merely references alleged discrimination during plaintiff’s probationary letter

carrier employment. The complaint fails to provide fair notice and to state facts to support elements of

a particular claim. The complaint seeks no clear relief which this Court may award.

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 the U.S. Postal Service and/or its employees. Such

attempt to vex provides further grounds to dismiss this action.

Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is admonished that this Court’s Local Rule 15-220 requires an amended complaint to

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). After the filing th

of an amended complaint, the original pleadings serves no further function. Thus, in an amended

Case 1:06-cv-01752-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 12/08/06 Page 4 of 5
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

complaint, each claim and involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint, filed December 5, 2006, with leave to amend; and

2. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than December 22, 2006, to file an amended complaint in

compliance with this order.

This Court admonishes plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint in compliance

with this order will result in recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01752-AWI-GSA Document 4 Filed 12/08/06 Page 5 of 5