Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05491/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05491-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GADSEN, BEEBE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5491 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 10.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Michael Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 26, 2004. On April 29, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

Second Amended Complaint. 

A. Screening Standard

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 20 Filed 06/23/05 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted 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 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. Allegations in the Complaint

The allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (erroneously captioned as a Second

Amended Complaint) filed on April 29, 2005, are wholly unclear. The first page of the

complaint sets forth the venue and jurisdiction and then launches into forty-seven (47) pages of

what appears to be a court transcript of criminal proceedings. Nowhere in the Complaint does

Plaintiff list the names of the Defendants, the claims for relief or the acts or omissions giving rise

to the claim for relief. 

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 20 Filed 06/23/05 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

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

In this case, because Plaintiff has merely recited sections of a court transcript, he has

failed to link any of the named individuals to any act or omission giving rise to a claim for relief. 

2. Rule 8(a)

The federal system is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307

F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions,

with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant

fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz,

534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be

granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. 

Discovery and summary judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and

“dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Id. at 512. 

In this case, the Amended Complaint consists of 49 pages of recitation of a court

transcript. As noted above, nowhere does Plaintiff list the defendants, the claims, or link any

individual to an act or omission giving rise to the claims for relief. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to

provide the defendants, to the extent there are any, with notice of the claims and facts supporting

his claims. It is not the duty of the Court to read numerous pages of text taken from a Court

transcript and try to guess at who the defendants might be and what the claims might be. Such a

responsibility lies with the Plaintiff making the allegations and pursuing a legal action. 

Accordingly, the Court has no alternative but to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 

C. Conclusion

Having found that the Amended Complaint states no claims for relief against any of the

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 20 Filed 06/23/05 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

named defendants, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure to state

any claims on which relief can be granted;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

form; and 

3. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

file an AMENDED COMPLAINT or indicate in writing whether he wishes to

voluntarily dismiss the action. Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220

requires that an Amended Complaint 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 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an

Amended Complaint is filed, 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. 

The Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Plaintiff’s failure to file an Second Amended Complaint in compliance with this order

will result in a Recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05491-OWW -LJO Document 20 Filed 06/23/05 Page 4 of 4