Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01589/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01589-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ROUSAY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1589 LKK KJM PS

vs.

PAUL CELLUCCI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff appears to seek relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. 

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. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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 Hosp. 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). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so vague, disconnected and

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a

claim for relief. 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 in which defendants engaged that support plaintiff's claim. Id. 

In McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a complaint it found to be “argumentative, prolix, replete with

redundancy, and largely irrelevant. It consists largely of immaterial background information.” 

The court observed the Federal Rules require that a complaint consist of “simple, concise, and

direct” averments. Id. As a model of concise pleading, the court quoted the standard form

negligence complaint from the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 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

 1. Allegation of jurisdiction.

 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called Boylston Street, in Boston

Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who

was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was

otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great

pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and

hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of one

thousand dollars.

Id. Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from some of the problems outlined in McHenry, which

complicates the court’s task of screening it. 

Moreover, certain of plaintiff’s allegations appear directed to the actions of local

law enforcement. In Monell v. New York City Dept. Of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 

(1978), the Supreme Court held a municipality was not liable under the civil rights act simply

because the agency or municipality employed a person who violated a plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. The basis for any such claim must be a showing of a governmental policy or custom that

was “the moving force” behind the constitutional violation. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471

U.S. 808, 820 (1985). The Ninth Circuit has distilled these pleading requirements for a § 1983

action against a municipality: the plaintiff must show he was deprived of a constitutional right,

the municipality has a policy, the policy amounts to deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, and the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. 

Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has pled nothing to connect any

alleged violations with any municipal policy, let alone identify the municipalities involved. 

In addition, plaintiff has not shown how any named defendant was involved

specifically in the alleged violations of his rights. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the

defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal connection”

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 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

in section 1983 cases between named defendant and claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152

F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

deprivation of his civil rights."). 

Taking into account all of the above, and because plaintiff’s complaint does not

comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) in that it does not contain a short and

plain statement of allegations, the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant

leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the federal court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff must also allege a proper basis for venue in this district. Further,

plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of

plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed 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 must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 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

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: August 22, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

rousay.ifp-lta 

Case 2:05-cv-01589-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 Page 5 of 5