Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02140/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02140-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AKIKA PARKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF 

SACRAMENTO CA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-2140 TLN AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has renewed her request for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has now submitted 

the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP will be 

granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires 

federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 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). 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 6
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

 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous or not, by 

drafting her complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. 

P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rulespolicies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. Under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 

federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), 

(2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the 

plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a). 

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Rule 8(d)(1). Forms are 

available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available 

at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 

www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions 

cast in the form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to 

judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); 

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 

(2001). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Cir. 2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 A. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff has named the “District Attorney’s Office of Sacramento CA” and the “District 

Attorney[]” as the sole defendants in this lawsuit. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 2 ¶ I(B). The 

complaint alleges that the court has federal question jurisdiction, but does not indicate what 

federal statute or right is involved. See Complaint at 3 ¶ II. The court therefore infers that 

plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her federal civil 

rights. Plaintiff also alleges “Defamation of Character.” Complaint at 7 ¶ 13. 

 According to the complaint, plaintiff “makes a complaint about the manner in which the 

Sacramento District Attorney is handling her situation.” Complaint at 8. All the specific 

“Charges” set out in the complaint relate to actions the “District Attorney” is alleged to have done 

or failed to do in her role as prosecutor. For example, the District Attorney is alleged to have 

“pressed charges” against plaintiff even though plaintiff is innocent, given an “unfair plea 

bargain” to plaintiff, pressed charges based upon a police error, failed to press charges against 

others, and the like. See Complaint at 6-7 ¶¶ 1-12. 

 B. Analysis 

 The District Attorney’s Office, and the District Attorney herself, when making decisions 

about criminal prosecutions, are acting in their roles as state officials, and accordingly possess 

sovereign immunity from suit. Del Campo v. Kennedy, 517 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(“[t]hey act as state officials, and so possess Eleventh Amendment immunity, when acting in 

[their] prosecutorial capacity”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Weiner v. San Diego County, 

210 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[w]e conclude that a California district attorney is a state 

officer when deciding whether to prosecute an individual”); Modoc County v. Spencer, 103 Cal. 

498, 501 (1894) (“[i]n the prosecution of criminal cases he [the county prosecutor] acts by the 

authority and in the name of the people of the state”). 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 6
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

 In addition, the District Attorney is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity when 

acting within the scope of her duties as a prosecutor. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 

Nothing in the complaint indicates that any of the District Attorney’s alleged conduct was outside 

of her prosecutorial duties. 

 The court notes that plaintiff alleges “Defamation of Character” and has checked the box 

on the complaint form for “diversity jurisdiction.” However, the complaint fails to allege facts 

showing the existence of diversity jurisdiction, namely, that plaintiff and defendants are citizens 

of different states, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

To the contrary, the complaint indicates that all parties are California citizens, and that the 

amount in controversy is $34,000. See Complaint at 2 ¶ I(B), II(B)(3). In addition, the court will 

not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state defamation claim if no federal claim survives 

screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

 The complaint will accordingly be dismissed. Although the complaint as it currently 

stands plainly lacks merit, the court cannot say that granting leave to amend would be futile. 

Accordingly, plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend her complaint. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 The amended complaint, in addition to alleging facts establishing the existence of federal 

jurisdiction, must contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claim. The allegations of the 

complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number 

being one greater than the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph 

number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single 

set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help 

plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 

501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 

www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 6
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

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 

2. The complaint (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED because it names only defendants who are 

immune from suit. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 5 of 6
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

3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 

 recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: October 31, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-02140-TLN-AC Document 7 Filed 11/01/16 Page 6 of 6