Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00781-1/pdf.json

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ALVARO TRAQUINA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0781 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 2:13-cv-00781-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/04/14 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

27

28

2

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

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 when it is based on an 

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

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“a judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

First, plaintiff failed to sign the civil rights complaint. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure requires that all litigants proceeding without counsel must sign every pleading. 

Id. Although plaintiff typed his name on the signature line, plaintiff’s typewritten name is not

////

Case 2:13-cv-00781-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/04/14 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

27

28

3

sufficient under Rule 11. Thus, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed with leave to allow 

plaintiff to submit a signed amended complaint.

Second, rather than complete the complaint form used by this district, plaintiff refers the 

reader to “see attached complaint.” (ECF No. 1 at 2, 3.) Plaintiff appended a five page 

typewritten complaint which is also not signed by plaintiff (ECF No. 1 at 38), and is addressed to 

the Solano County Superior Court and the Honorable Judge Harry S. Kinnicutt, a Solano County 

Superior Court Judge (ECF No. 1 at 35.) The typewritten complaint also bears a Superior Court 

Case Number FCS 039590. (Id.) Plaintiff is advised that he cannot pursue the same claims in 

two different courts at the same time. Plaintiff does state in this typewritten complaint that he is 

filing the instant civil rights action in federal court (ECF No. 1 at 35), but the heading does not 

make clear that he is not pursuing the same claims in both venues at the same time. Thus, in any 

amended complaint, plaintiff must make clear that he is solely pursuing his claims in federal court 

and not in Solano County Superior Court action FCS 039590.

Third, plaintiff may state a potentially cognizable civil rights claim based on his 

allegations that defendants’ deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. If plaintiff is not 

concurrently pursuing these claims in state court, plaintiff may re-append the typewritten 

complaint to the completed civil rights form used by our district if he deletes the reference to the 

Superior Court of Solano County, the state court judge and case number, and provides a valid 

signature to both the federal civil rights form and the typewritten complaint. Plaintiff need not reappend the 31 exhibits as these exhibits remain a part of the court record and may be referenced

by any party. 

Because plaintiff failed to sign either complaint, the complaint must be dismissed with 

leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must 

personally sign the complaint form. 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 220 

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

This requirement exists 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 

Case 2:13-cv-00781-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/04/14 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

27

28

4

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 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

Dated: June 3, 2014

/jack0781.14

Case 2:13-cv-00781-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/04/14 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ALVARO TRAQUINO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0781 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-00781-KJN Document 8 Filed 06/04/14 Page 5 of 5