Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06925/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06925-1/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

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6925 REC LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Joseph Raymond McCoy (“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 December 24, 2003. Following numerous attempts by

the Court to resolve the fee issue and appeals by Plaintiff, the appeal issue was resolved on

August 11, 2004. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 41 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

2

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). 

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. RULE 8(A) OF FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not comply with Rule

8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which calls for a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a), and mandates that

“[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(e)(1). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is not only lengthy but difficult to read in that Plaintiff repeatedly uses legal

jargon throughout and makes numerous references to hundreds of attachments. In addition, the

Court cannot glean the nature of Plaintiff’s complaints from what is provided as Plaintiff appears

to be providing a narrative of every minute detail over the course of a certain period of time. 

Given that Plaintiff is suing forty-three defendants, these failures are of no minor consequence. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint should be short and to the point, containing only those facts

necessary to state one or more claims against each defendant. Plaintiff complaint should not

contain legal arguments, citations to legal authority, unnecessary background information or

mere references to attachments. The function of the Complaint is to place the Defendants on

notice as to Plaintiff’s claims for relief and the facts that support those claims. It is not the

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 41 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

3

function of the Complaint to list every single fact that is somehow related to the claims without

ever specifying which constitutional violations occurred and a brief statement as to how it

occurred. In addition, Plaintiff need not submit every piece of evidence in his possession that he

intends to use to support his claims at a later stage in the proceedings. The Complaint serves

only to provide the Defendants with notice. Thus, it is imperative that it list each claim for relief

and then a brief statement of the facts that support that claim for relief. In addition, the Court

recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in propria persona. Thus, he is not required

to use legal terms or what is often referred to in the legal community as “legal jargon.” Plain,

simple and most importantly, understandable English will suffice.

Plaintiff should further note that 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

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.

Because Plaintiff’s complaint is almost entirely incomprehensible and thus, not in

compliance with Rule 8(a), the Court declines to expend its already taxed resources trying to

figure out what the Claims for relief are and what Defendants did to violate his rights. This

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 41 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

4

should be made abundantly clear by the Complaint itself so as to notify the Court and Defendants

of the nature of the violation and the facts that demonstrate the violation. Plaintiff must submit a

complaint to the court that meets the requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiff’s adherence to Rule 8's

“short and plain statement” requirement will serve to assist the Court and the Defendants in

moving his case along. 

D. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its current state, does not

contain any claims upon which relief can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. 

The Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file a first Amended Complaint curing the

deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). Plaintiff shall state as briefly as possible the facts of his case, describing how each

Defendant is involved, and Plaintiff shall not give any legal arguments or cite to any cases or

statutes. Plaintiff shall separate and label his claims, so that each claim and the involvement of

the Defendant(s) in each claim are clear. Further, for each claim, Plaintiff shall briefly, clearly

and succinctly set forth the facts that Plaintiff believes give rise to the claim. Further, there can

be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423, U.S. 362

(1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, 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 “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 41 Filed 11/21/05 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

27

28

5

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form. It is most beneficial to the Court and opposing parties when the

Plaintiff utilizes this form as it contains questions that will draw out the necessary

facts that support claims for relief. 

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06925-MHM Document 41 Filed 11/21/05 Page 5 of 5