Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00179/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF S. HARNDEN,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CALIFORNIA; JUDICIAL NOTICE;

GLOVER, 

Defendants. /

NO. C 10-0179 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING

CLERK TO APPLY FILING FEE

FROM CASE NO. C 09-4956 WHA

TO THIS CASE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Corcoran, in Corcoran, California, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested that the filing fee paid in

a prior case, Case No. 09-4956 WHA (PR) be applied to this matter. .

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

Case 3:10-cv-00179-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

The complaint is incoherent. For example, plaintiff names as defendants “California,”

“Judicial Notice,” and “Glover,” without identifying who “Glover” is or where he is located. In

the section of the form complaint in which to set forth his “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff states

“Paid 350.00 for Judicial notice of State Exhaustion and a Federal Question 30 Questions to Be

written in an order on Exhaustion State appeals process 28 USC – 2244 on § 1983 which is

allowed FRCP FRE 201(b) Notice of court record.” In the section of the form complaint for

describing the relief plaintiff seeks, he states “Ruling By USDist Judge Henderson Judicial

notice of State Appeals Exhaustion (4) Trials, D.N.A. motion after Exhaustion Period. Quick

and Speedy Determination of Exhaustion for 9th Cir. To prove what was Exhausted and when

by Looking at paragraphs and Questions.” Plaintiff continues in this manner in the

approximately 150 pages that he attaches to the form complaint. In addition to his writings, the

attachments include a variety of unlabeled exhibits that plaintiff has marked with similarly

wide-ranging incoherent annotations. 

The complaint does not comply with the requirement that the averments be "simple,

concise, and direct." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that the complaint set forth

Case 3:10-cv-00179-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule

8(e) requires that each averment of a pleading be "simple, concise, and direct," and the failure

to adhere to this requirement may be the basis for dismissal. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was "argumentative, prolix, replete

with redundancy, and largely irrelevant"). The complaint here does not comply with Rule 8(e). 

It does not set forth simple, concise and direct averments. Instead, the allegations are rambling,

nearly impossible to understand, and at times highly inflammatory, including the allegation that

a former judge of this court is both a “liar” and an “anarchist.” Plaintiff will be given leave to

file an amended complaint that complies with the requirement of Rule 8(a) that he set forth only

a “short and plain statement” of his claim. 

As plaintiff’s allegations appear to touch on alleged violations that occurred during in

the course of his prosecution in state court, he should be aware that in amending his complaint

he may not set forth any claims that, if proven, would render his state court conviction or

sentence invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). 

C. FILING FEE

Plaintiff has requested that the filing fee he paid in Case No. 09-4956 WHA (PR) be

applied to the instant matter. The fee in that case was ordered to be refunded to plaintiff

because it was received after the case had already been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee

by the deadline. As the fee has not yet been refunded to plaintiff, it will be more efficient to

simply apply it to the instant matter. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty

days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order (No. C 10-0179 WHA (PR)) and the words AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance

Case 3:10-cv-00179-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

with this order will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Plaintiff’s request to apply the filing fee that he paid in Case No. 09-4956 WHA (PR)

to the instant matter is GRANTED. The order dated January 8, 2010 in Case No. C 09-4956

WHA is VACATED IN PART to the extent it directs the Clerk to refund the filing fee. Instead,

the Clerk shall apply the filing fee paid in Case No. 09-4056 WHA to the instant matter. No

further filing fee is due. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.10\HARNDEN0179.LTA.wpd 

Case 3:10-cv-00179-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 4