Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00869-0/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

GABRIEAL MCCAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 05-0869 WBS GGH PS

vs.

SOKA OM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

required inquiry. 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 5
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

 Neither does it comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of pleadings. 

2

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff 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 its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230.

The court cannot determine whether the complaint is frivolous or can be amended

to state a claim, because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.1 Rule 8 sets forth general

rules of pleading for the Federal Courts. Rule 8(a) requires complaints to include: (1) the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for relief. The complaint does not meet the first

two of these requirements. 

The court has been unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A

federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by

the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co, 511 U.S. 375, 377,

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 5
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

114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the

United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may

from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal

district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.

689, 697-99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at

any time by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products,

Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974). 

The complaint alleges breach of contract, and asserts that defendant failed to

follow through, causing plaintiff loss of required medical care. Plaintiff states the court has

jurisdiction because defendant resides in Sacramento and the contract was formed under federal

law in Sacramento. First, plaintiff is confusing venue with jurisdiction. Second, simple

reference to federal law does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co.,

53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause

of action within the court’s original jurisdiction. Id. None of these matters states a federal claim.

It is plaintiff’s obligation to state the basis of the court’s jurisdiction in the complaint, and

plaintiff has not done so. 

The requirement of a short and plain statement means a complaint must include

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 5
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

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff refers to an agreement which she claims

defendants breached, and presumably she is referring to the attached exhibit which is a “child

welfare services case plan update;” however, plaintiff does not specify that this is the agreement

which was violated. Furthermore, merely stating that “she made her agreement to me she listed

my expectations of the agreement which were not followed through and as a result I’ve suffered

great lost for medical care which was required,” does not put defendants on notice of how they

allegedly breached this agreement. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102

(1957); Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (vague and scanty

allegations fail to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1202 (2d ed. 1990).

Finally, plaintiff has failed to properly and fully set forth her allegations within the

complaint, instead referencing attached exhibits which plaintiff mistakenly believes are sufficient

to state a claim. It is not the function of the court to peruse exhibits and frame plaintiff’s cause

of action for her, nor would it be proper to do so. Therefore, plaintiff will be permitted to file an

amended complaint in order to cure these deficiencies.

Plaintiff is informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir.1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 262 (9th Cir.).

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 4 of 5
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. The complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days of this order. PLAINTIFF IS ADVISED THAT ANY FUTURE FILINGS SHOULD

REFER TO THE CIVIL CASE NUMBER STAMPED ON PAGE ONE OF THIS ORDER.

DATED: 6/15/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Mccain869.ifp.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00869-WBS-GGH Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 5 of 5