Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03811/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03811-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-03811-JSC 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Dkt. No. 14)

Plaintiff Clarence A. Branch, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United 

States of America. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and reserved to a later time evaluation of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. 

No. 3.) The Court thereafter issued an Order to Show Cause because mail sent to Plaintiff at his 

last known address had been returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff then responded to 

the Order to Show Cause, provided his new address, and consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 10.) The Court then reviewed the complaint under 

Section 1915 and dismissed it for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff had failed to identify a 

cognizable legal theory. (Dkt. No. 11.) On the deadline to do so, Plaintiff filed a document 

captioned “Amendment.” (Dkt. No. 14.) It is unclear if this document is an attempt to amend 

the complaint as it fails to address any of the issues raised in the Court’s prior Order, but in an 

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 15 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

excess of caution, the Court will construe it as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

1

 Having 

reviewed the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 1915, the Court DISMISSES the 

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a 

party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal 

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). Upon dismissal, 

pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless 

it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).

In dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court noted that it had been unable to discern 

any cognizable legal claim from Plaintiff’s filing. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fares no 

better. Below the caption of “Amendment” on the first page, the filing states:

In-Personnam (Grounds) 

relief; “Payment”, Pay to the order of Clarence A Branch the demand

relief: “Laches Doctrine”

(Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) Other than these three sentences, there is no other written component to the 

FAC. Instead, Plaintiff has attached 9 pages of exhibits, many of which he previously submitted, 

including a handwritten “Interrogatory # 3” which is addressed to the Honorable Judge Sidney 

Thomas. (Id. at 8.) As with his prior complaint, Plaintiff’s amendment presents “no cognizable 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a response to a prior to Order to Show Cause on October 17—the same day as the 

Court’s dismissal Order—although it was not docketed until October 19. (Dkt. No. 12.) This 

filing is not responsive to the Court’s dismissal order and contains an improper request that the 

contents of the filing be submitted under seal. The Court STRIKES the filing for failure to 

comply with Local Rule 79-5 regarding filing matters under seal.

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 15 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

legal theory [and] an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.”

Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Court thus again dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim. “A district court 

should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (per curiam). Because the 

Court cannot say with certainty that further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims would be futile since 

the Court has yet been able to glean the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claim(s), the Court will give 

Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint by December 19, 2016. Any amended complaint must specify the basis for his legal 

claim(s) and the facts which support his claim(s). If Plaintiff fails to identify the legal and factual 

basis for his claims, or fails to file an amended complaint by this date, this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 15 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03811-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 30, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Clarence A. Branch

391 Ellis Street

General Delivery

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dated: November 30, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-03811-JSC Document 15 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 4