Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ, No. CIV.S-06-1132 LKK DAD PS

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ, II,

and ISRAEL AYALA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER AND

POLICE OFFICER R. DAVIS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BADGE 340, POLICE OFFICER

LANDBURG, BADGE 280, and CITY

OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(C)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete affidavit regarding

his alleged inability to pay fees. Specifically, plaintiff has

failed to complete the second page of the required Application to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. Accordingly, the

Case 2:06-cv-01132-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/14/06 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

2

request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without

prejudice.

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is

directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines the

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or

seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

1984). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01132-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/14/06 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

3

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

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

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a

claim for relief. The complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and contains a claim that plaintiff was arrested by City of

Sacramento police officers and briefly incarcerated in violation of

his Fourth Amendment and due process rights. However, the events

alleged in the complaint occurred on November 12, 1999, more than six

years prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, any § 1983

cause of action is clearly barred by the applicable one year statute

of limitations. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.

1999).

Additionally, the instant complaint is virtually identical

to one of the several other complaints recently submitted by

plaintiff for filing in this district. The complaint in Manuel Ayala

Alvarez, et al. v. Police Officer R. Davis, Badge 340, et al., No.

CIV.S-06-0771 LKK DAD PS, concerns the same events and recently was

dismissed with leave to amend.

Finally, the court notes plaintiff appears to be attempting

to proceed on behalf of his minor sons. However, not even as a

guardian ad litem could plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, represent

the interests of his sons. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114

F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding father could not represent

minor son in action alleging constitutional violations without

retaining counsel). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's

Case 2:06-cv-01132-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/14/06 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

4

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without

prejudice to submitting an amended application. The Clerk of the

Court is directed to send plaintiff a new application to proceed

without prepayment of fees and affidavit. If plaintiff wishes to

pursue this action, he shall properly complete and file an amended in

forma pauperis application within twenty (20) days of being served

with this order and findings and recommendations.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without leave to amend for failure to state a claim for relief.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the district court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 11, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\alvarez1132.ifp.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-01132-LKK -DAD Document 3 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 4