Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJIE JEAN HAYMON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SBC, et.al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0639 AWI DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on April 27, 2007.

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by a loose SBC cable while she was walking down the

street. Plaintiff contends the cable was attached to a PG&E pole. Plaintiff names SBC, AT&T

Corporation and PG&E as defendants and requests monetary damages.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that 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). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

Plaintiff alleges that SBC was negligent in maintaining their cable system. She contends

the cable was approximately 2 inches in diameter with very sharp ends. She contends that as the

cable swung down, she turned her head to avoid but the cable hit her right eye. She has pain in

her knee and neck as well as her eye. 

Plaintiff has failed to state the grounds for jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Rule 8. 

The Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Unlike the state courts, there is no inherent

or general subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Court can only adjudicate those cases that the

Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate which are essentially those involving

diversity of citizenship, or a federal question, or to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Plaintiff has not alleged any basis

for Federal Court jurisdiction in the present case. Plaintiff has not alleged the deprivation of a

federal constitutional or statutory right. It appears that diversity of citizenship may exist,

however, plaintiff does not include the citizenship of any of the parties in the complaint. The

Court is therefore unable to determine if it has jurisdiction over the instant action. Plaintiff will

be granted an opportunity to amend the complaint to remedy this deficiency, as described below. 

For the above reasons, the Court must dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The court will,

however, grant plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint to attempt to correct the

deficiencies. Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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.

Plaintiff is further advised that failure to file an amended complaint consistent with this

order may result in dismissal of the action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED; and

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff must file an amended

complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00639-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3