Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

07cv362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA REEDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN KNAPIK DBA K/MONT

CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 26, 2007, Virginia Reeder, who is listed as plaintiff and is appearing pro se,

submitted a complaint that was signed only by Willie James Washington, as having power of

attorney for Virginia Reeder. A non-attorney cannot represent a pro se litigant. See Johns v.

County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) ("While a non-attorney may appear pro se

on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself."). 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the current complaint and grant Virginia Reeder leave to file

an amended complaint which she signs.

If Virginia Reeder chooses to continue to pursue this action by filing an amended

complaint, plaintiff is advised that she must set forth the grounds upon which the court's

jurisdiction depends. Moreover, any amended complaint must include clear and concise factual

allegations describing the events which underlie plaintiff’s claims. See Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8. In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 3 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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 It is also not clear if Virginia Reeder intends to bring this action or remove the

action on the basis of original jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction given her statement that

damages are in excess of $50,000. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Additionally, a federal court has jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states

and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The diversity statute

must be strictly construed. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.

1983). The citizenship of all defendants, whether or not they have been served with the

complaint, determines if complete diversity exists. Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d

1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1969); accord Pecherski v. General Motors Corp., 636 F.2d 1156, 1160

(8th Cir. 1981). The party seeking to invoke the court's original or diversity jurisdiction bears

the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

Cir. 1992).

2 07cv362

order to make any amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in

itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because an amended complaint supersedes

the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). Once a plaintiff files

an amended complaint, the original complaint 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. Any amended pleading which fails to provide

the necessary factual description as to each defendant will likely be dismissed.

Further, it is not clear from the complaint whether Virginia Reeder is attempting to

remove an action from the state court. The complaint states: “That Plaintiff seeks to remove the

pending civil small claims petition to the United States District Court based on the amount of

damages exceeding $50,000.”1

 (Complaint at 4). A plaintiff cannot remove an action to federal

court; only a defendant may seek removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a): 

A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action or criminal

prosecution from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for

the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal

signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing

a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all

process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such

action.

If Virginia Reeder is attempting to remove an action from the state court in which she is a named

defendant, she must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding her pro se

status.

Finally, Virginia Reeder names several private individuals as defendants in this purported

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 3 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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 07cv362

civil rights complaint. A § 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation of a right secured by

the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the defendant acted under color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988). Thus, a § 1983 action is generally

not applicable to private parties. Plaintiff is cautioned to determine whether there is some legal

basis for asserting a § 1983 claim against private parties if she seeks to amend the complaint to

name private individuals.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED dismissing the complaint without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of

the filing of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order within the time provided will result in this action be

closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 3 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3