Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02001/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRYSTAL DE LA CRUZ and SERGIO 

DE LA CRUZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-2001 DAD AC PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. The case was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff Crystal De La Cruz filed a request for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 A. Legal Standard 

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). 

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 

complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 7
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 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/currentrules-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. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 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; 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). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 7
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 

 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678.  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), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

B. The Complaint 

 Two plaintiffs are listed in the caption of this case: Crystal De La Cruz (“Crystal”) and 

Sergio De La Cruz (“Sergio”). ECF No. 1 at 1. Only Crystal is listed as a plaintiff under 

“Parties” section of the form complaint (Id. at 2), and only Crystal signed the complaint (Id. at 6). 

It is unclear from the contents of the complaint which plaintiff is making the allegations, as it is 

written in the singular first person, though context indicates the author is Crystal. Plaintiffs allege 

that defendant police officers participated in or led a warrantless unlawful search and seizure 

without probable cause, including searching a personal Facebook profile. Id. at 8. There was 

also a separate incident in which officers detained the plaintiffs’ son and confiscated his 

cellphone. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the “Sacramento Police Department and its employees have 

been harassing me and illegally participating in several unlawful acts on separate occasions” 

including unlawful search and seizure, and detaining plaintiffs’ father and son. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs 

seek injunctive relief including changing the way the Sacramento Police Department operates as a 

whole, and punitive damages. Id. at 10. 

C. Analysis 

 There are several problems with the complaint that prevent service at this time. First, the 

complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth plaintiff’s entitlement to 

relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those things are required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “sufficient allegations to 

put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 7
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 

798 (9th Cir.1991). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiffs is unclear from the 

complaint, which contains disconnected events and circumstances that happened over a period of 

time. The court cannot tell from examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to each 

plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiffs seek. 

 Second, Sergio is not a proper plaintiff in this case because he did not sign the complaint, 

and he has also not applied for IFP status or paid the filing fee. Each pro se plaintiff must 

represent themselves, sign the pleadings themselves on their own behalf, and submit their own 

applications to proceed in forma pauperis (or pay the filing fee). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Local Rule 

131. Plaintiffs are advised that to continue with both plaintiffs, each named plaintiff must sign 

the complaint on behalf of themselves if they wish to proceed pro se in this action or must have a 

licensed attorney that represents them in the action sign and submit any filings. See L.R. 131; 

Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. 

United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Third, it appears plaintiffs seek to represent other individuals in this case or bring claims 

on their behalf, which cannot be done by a pro se plaintiff. For example, an incident involving 

plaintiffs’ son was mentioned in the complaint. As a pro se litigant, a plaintiff can represent only 

themselves. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[C]ourts have 

routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf 

of others in a representative capacity.”). This is true even with respect to parents and their 

children: a parent appearing in pro se cannot bring claims on behalf of their minor child. Johns v. 

County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“we hold that a parent or guardian 

cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.”). A plaintiff can 

only bring a lawsuit seeking relief for things that happened to him or her personally. 

Rather than recommending dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide plaintiffs 

an opportunity to amend their complaint. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must contain a short 

and plain statement of plaintiffs’ claims, explaining exactly what happened to who, and when. 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 4 of 7
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 

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. 

 Plaintiffs 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 

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 plaintiffs’ 

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 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 5 of 7
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 

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

alleged. 

 Finally, the amended complaint must be signed by each plaintiff, and each plaintiff must 

either seek IFP status or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff Crystal is granted IFP status in this order, and 

does not need to apply again, but plaintiff Sergio must either apply for IFP status or pay the filing 

fee. Further, the complaint should allege only violations of law that are specific to each plaintiff; 

plaintiffs can only represent themselves. 

III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 

 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 

complaint what legal harm was done to each of you personally. Because the complaint as written 

does not tell the court what happened to each plaintiff and specify the time and defendant 

involved, it will not be served on defendants. Also, only plaintiff Crystal signed the complaint 

and was granted IFP status. Unless Sergio signs the amended complaint and pays the filing fee or 

seeks IFP status, Sergio cannot be a plaintiff. Finally, you can only bring a lawsuit based on 

things that violated your own legal rights, not things that happened to other people including 

family members. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 

You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint. If you submit an amended 

complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by 

whom and how, and how those violations impacted each plaintiff. Without this information, the 

court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to bring against the defendants. If you do not 

submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be 

dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff Crystal De La Cruz’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 

GRANTED; 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 6 of 7
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 

7 

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

complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiffs fail to timely comply with this 

order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: October 28, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-02001-DAD-AC Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 7 of 7