Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00913/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00913-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINCOLN D. FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES FISCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00913-RS 

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART, 

AND DIRECTING SERVICE

Appearing pro se, plaintiff Lincoln D. Finley initiated this action by filing what he labeled 

as a “petition for writ of certiorari,” which the then-assigned judicial officer construed as a 

complaint, and dismissed, with leave to amend in part. Finley subsequently filed a first amended 

complaint (Dkt. No. 16, entitled simply “Complaint), which was also dismissed, with partial leave 

to amend. Finley has now filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which like the prior 

pleadings, is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal if it is frivolous, 

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 

845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint rule 

on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the United States 

Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see 

also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the language of § 

Case 4:14-cv-00913-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 14-cv-00913-RS

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). As the 

United States Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to 

discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that 

paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989).

The SAC continues to name as defendants several individuals who allegedly are assistant 

District Attorneys and who apparently played some unspecified role in state court criminal 

proceedings brought against Finley. The prior orders expressly advised Finley he could not pursue 

claims against such persons absent facts that they “fabricated evidence during the early stage of 

the investigation, provided legal advice to the police in the investigative phase of a criminal case, 

or attested to the truth of evidence in support of charging documents,” such that their conduct fell 

outside the immunity afforded them in roles as advocates for the government. The SAC sets out 

no such facts. Given the repeated failure to offer any such allegations, the claims against 

defendants Youssef Jacob-Elias, Amy Ai-Mei Deng, Daniel Gipsman Roisman, Allyson Bennett 

Donovan, Nicholas C. Homer, and Veronica Amaya Rios are dismissed without leave to amend.

The allegations against the police officer defendants, Officer James Fisher and Officer 

Michael Agosta, remain thin. Without concluding that those allegations necessarily satisfy 

minimal pleading standards, and without prejudice to a dismissal motion on that or any other 

grounds, however, the SAC will be deemed sufficient to permit plaintiff to proceed at this 

juncture. Accordingly, it is ordered that the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California 

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders, 

attachments, plaintiff’s affidavit and this order upon defendants Fisher and Agosta.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00913-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2