Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00821-1/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

ROCKY RENO MEVES, Case No. 07-cv-0821 LJO NEW (TAG)

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v. TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THE CALIFORNIA RAND (Doc. 6) 

SILVER MINNING CO., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On June 5, 2007, Plaintiff Rocky Reno Meves (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302.

On June 14, 2007, the undersigned found that Plaintiff had failed to specifiy the acts that the defendants

committed, or failed to perform, that deprived him of an unspecified constitutional right. (Doc. 4). In

the June 14, 2007, order, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and he was granted thirty days to file an

amended complaint. (Id.). Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2007. (Doc. 6).

After screening the amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommends that it be dismissed for the

following reasons. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff identifies the defendants as The California Rand Silver

Minning Co.; the E.P.A., B.L.M. et al. as agencies employed by the Department of the Interior

Hazardous Materials at Ridgecrest/State of California; the U.S.M.S. Patent Office, County of San

Bernadino, State of California; and the Kelly Mine Site, Red Mtn California, et al. (“Defendants”).

(Doc. 6). Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be that the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right

against cruel and unusual punishment by exposing himto arsenic, which resulted in his suffering arsenic

poisoning. (Doc. 6, p. 3). Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants violated his Fourteenth

Case 1:07-cv-00821-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

2

Amendment guarantees by depriving him of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

(Id.). He seeks $1,000,000 in relief. (Id.). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this Court must “screen” a prisoner’s complaint to determine

whether the case should be dismissed because, among other things, it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

A claim is frivolous if 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, 1227-28. A frivolous claim is based on an

inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. A federal court may dismiss a claim as

frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. 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 cost-free 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).

During the screening process, this Court considers whether the plaintiff has complied with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that:

A [complaint] shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . , (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.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). 

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). The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

Case 1:07-cv-00821-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

3

specific overt acts which the defendant(s) engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. The Rule 8(a)

statement “must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citations omitted).

Although a plaintiff need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and there is entitlement to relief under some viable legal theory.

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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to satisfy the minimum standards to state a claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, he does not differentiate the acts committed or omitted by the various parties

that allegedly resulted in his developing arsenic poisoning. (Doc. 6). This deficiency is critical because

it violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); that is, there is no way to determine from Plaintiff’s amended complaint

who violated his constitutional rights, and what actions each Defendant engaged in, or failed to perform,

that would subject them to liability. Swierkiewicz , 534 U.S. at 512; Jones, 733 F.2d at 649; (Doc. 6).

In addition, the lack of differentiation calls into questions whether certain parties are subject to suit under

§ 1983. For example, with respect to private parties, a plaintiff can state a claim under § 1983 if he

alleges that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights

secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th

Cir. 2006). Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. Brentwood Academy v.

Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001). Moreover, the Eleventh

Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. Seminole

Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53-54 (1996); Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951

F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In addition, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits

against state agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural

///

Case 1:07-cv-00821-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

4

Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Transp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks,

951 F.2d at 1053. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff’s amended complaint has not set forth sufficient allegations to state a claim against 

Defendants or to demonstrate that he can state a claim against the private and state parties, or that this

Court has jurisdiction to consider certain claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint

is devoid of any claim or facts that would provide notice to Defendants as to what actions they engaged

in, or omitted to perform, that resulted in any harm that would entitle Plaintiff to relief under a § 1983.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and (3). Because Plaintiff already has been provided the opportunity to cure the

deficiencies in his initial complaint, without success, the undersigned recommends that

1. Rocky Reno Meves’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

and 

2. The Clerk of this Court be DIRECTED to close this case.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, any partymay file written objections with the court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Responses to the objections shall be served and filed within fifteen

(15) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00821-LJO-LJO Document 8 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 4