Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01425/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01425-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

DAVID GOTTLIEB, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:05cv1425 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Document 8)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

The instant civil rights action was transferred to this Court from the District of Maryland

on November 14, 2005. 

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

On December 12, 2005, pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff submitted an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the application reveals that Plaintiff is unable to

afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

B. Screening of Complaint

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

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 12/20/05 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

2

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.

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.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

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).

Plaintiff names Fresno County Superior Court Judge David Gottlieb as the Defendant and

alleges that he violated Plaintiff’s civil rights during the course of an unspecified criminal

proceeding. He alleges that Defendant “conspired to violate Federal Laws, Civil Rights and Acts

set forth by the United States of America as a favor to employees of Fresno County and Fresno

County Police Department.” Complaint, at 2. Plaintiff does not request any specific relief.

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 12/20/05 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

Plaintiff’s recitation of random facts does not assist the Court in putting his claims into

context. The complaint therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8. The complaint does

not give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Plaintiff fails to

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts in which Defendants engaged that

support his claims. The complaint contains little more than vague, conclusory allegations and

statements, with little or no facts to put the allegations into context. In other words, the Court is

unable to determine the exact nature of Plaintiff’s complaints and his requested relief. Indeed,

although Plaintiff alleges a general violation of his civil rights, he does not identify which federal

rights he contends the Defendant violated. As stated above, although a complaint need not

outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the allegations that all elements

exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable legal theory. Plaintiff’s complaint

does not meet this standard. 

Plaintiff is advised that the Civil Rights Act 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). 

Plaintiff is also advised that judges are absolutely immune from damages actions for

judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202,

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 12/20/05 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

1204 (9th Cir. 1988); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418 (1976). However, as it is almost

impossible to determine the exact nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will not make a finding

regarding immunity until Plaintiff submits a sufficient complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state cognizable claims for relief against the named

Defendant and therefore it must be dismissed in its entirety. However, the court will grant

Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint if he believes he can state a cognizable claim.

Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's

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 with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries 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, the court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED;

2. The complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend; 

3. Within twenty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint consistent with this order;

4. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must

be labeled “First Amended Complaint”; and 

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 12/20/05 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

5

5. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 12/20/05 Page 5 of 5