Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00327/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00327-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WAYNE FICK, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-327 REC/SMS

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF

FRESNO'S MOTION TO QUASH

SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30

DAYS 

On August 1, 2005, the court heard the motion to quash

service of summons and complaint filed by the County of Kern

under a special appearance. 

Upon due consideration of the record and the arguments of

the parties, the court grants the County of Kern’s motion and

quashes service. The court also orders plaintiff to file a

Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order within 30

days of the filing date of this Order.

The County of Fresno moves the court to quash the summons

served on it by plaintiff or to dismiss the action for

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 7
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

It does not appear that plaintiff filed a written opposition 1

to this motion to quash. On July 25, 2005, plaintiff did file a

document which appears to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by

the City of Fresno on July 21, 2005, which motion to dismiss is set

for hearing on October 3, 2005. 

2

insufficient service of process. In so moving, the County avers

that the summons received by the County was unaccompanied by the

Amended Complaint. The record substantiates the County’s 1

position.

Rule 4(c)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:

A summons shall be served together with a

copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is

responsible for service of a summons and

complaint within the time allowed under

subdivision (m) and shall furnish the person

effecting service with the necessary copies

of the summons and complaint.

Upon making a determination that process has not been properly

served on a defendant, district courts possess broad discretion

to either dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to effect

service or to simply quash service of process. Dismissal of a

complaint, however, is inappropriate when there exists a

reasonable prospect that service may yet be obtained whereupon

the district court should, at most, quash service, allowing the

plaintiff to effect proper service. Unbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d

25, 30 (3 Cir. 1992); Amous v. Trustmark National Bank, 195 rd

F.R.D. 607, 610 (N.D.Miss. 2000).

Here, because plaintiff will be ordered to file a Second

Amended Complaint and there exists a reasonable prospect that,

thereafter, plaintiff may effect proper service, the court

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 7
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

However, plaintiff has already paid the filing fee. 2

Therefore, to the extent that the Amended Complaint seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, that request is moot. 

3

quashes service on the County.

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, filed an Amended Complaint

on May 16, 2005. The Amended Complaint names as defendants the

“People of California” and “The U.S. America” and/or “People’s

[sic] of California and Goverment [sic] and State Offices of

California and Reno, Nevada.” The Amended Complaint appears for

the most part to be a request for leave to proceed in this action

in forma pauperis. The Amended Complaint does state: 2

The first Clauses of Articles I, II, III:

Table of Title and Chapters,

Personality Theory; Intellectual property

laws, Philosophy of: G.W.F. Hegel Holding

that Personal Expression from Self

Actualization of Moral Rights Intellectual

property Rights or View of the Individual

Inventor? 

73-505

...

As of Too Order a Summons in a Civil Case,

Notice of Lawsuit and Request Whith and

Whithout Waiver of Service of Summons, and

Service Whith and Whithout Waiver of Summons,

As Will Proof of Service, Too District #3,

and District #31, Citi, and County of Fresno,

California, and Reno, Nevada.

(A) Is Not as a Body or In the Precise

Configuration and Assembly of Its Components,

Generally Known or Readily Ascertainable:

Proc. 6445 Constitution Shows Protection of

Rights Legal and Legislation Regulation of

Government Expression, (#17) Bill of Rights,

Self Evidenc Instrumentality: Petition of

Right;, or Deceit Bad Faith Willful Injury,

Custial Responsibility Exercise: Dolus of

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 7
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

Fault Habeas Corpus: Benefits, Grievace; 1932

Federal Law Forbids Federal Courts From

Roling on Police: Resolve Diputs, 29 USEA §§

101-115 As Will Termed Labor A It -

Injunction: Inventive Process, Natural

Rights. 

...

Proc. 6445: Title 3 The President: Agreement

on Trade Regulations Between The United

States of America and The Republice of

Albania,: Acknowledging Development of

Relations and Direct Contact Between

Nationals and Companies of Both Parties Will

Promote Openness and Mutual Understanding and

Cooperation and Promote Respect Recognized

Worker Rights.

George Bush!!!

...

Has Been Decided That The President Might Be

Give Power To Change The Tariff J.W. Hamton

Jr. & Co. v. United States [1928]

...

As of All Complant of Filed of City Hall Have

Amount of 2500,000 x 3 7500,000.00 x 25 =

10,000,000.00 As of All Doctor Report I Can

Not See A Doctor Whithout being Harrassed 

P.S Over All = 6300,000,000.00 AS of 85

Bisness and Doctor people of Fresno, and the

County of Fresno, Mayor, City Board, County

Board, City Police As of This The Atternory

General Wrote Me An Sed To File As of Plublic

Harrassment See File And it is self

exsplanebl [sic]

None of this is intelligible and does not comply with either

Rules 8 or 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Amended Complaint was filed pursuant to the March 18,

2005 Order issued by Magistrate Judge Snyder, wherein Judge

Snyder conducted a sua sponte review of the Complaint under Rules

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 4 of 7
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

8 and 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Snyder set

forth the standards governing statement of a claim upon which

relief can be granted under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) and ruled in

pertinent part:

The complaint before the Court consists of a

two-inch thick stack of rambling,

disconnected narratives interspersed with

extraneous copies of documents, such as

social security correspondence or records,

administrative complaints made to law

enforcement agencies, and copies of website

information on government officials. The

named defendants include law enforcement

agencies, state and local executives,

hospitals, and individuals.

The complaint does not contain a short and

plain statement of the facts upon which

jurisdiction in this Court might rest, of the

claims made, or of the relief sought. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to

put any defendant on notice as to which of

his or its actions violated Plaintiff’s

rights, or to permit the Court to determine

whether Plaintiff could possibly win relief. 

At this point, it would be a fruitless

exercise to attempt service because the

complaint is so unclear that the extent of

the lawsuit cannot be determined.

Judge Snyder directed plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint

setting forth a short and plain statement of the facts

establishing jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s claim or claims, and

clearly and succinctly indicating both the conduct of each

defendant who plaintiff claims violated his rights, and the

relief sought. Plaintiff was also advised in this Order that the

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to

any prior pleading. In dismissing the Complaint with leave to

amend, Judge Snyder ordered plaintiff 

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

to file an amended complaint that complies

with the requirements of the pertinent

substantive law, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice;

... failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will be considered

to be a failure to comply with an order of

the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and

will result in dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff has not complied with the substance of Judge

Snyder’s ruling in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint

does not allege the basis of this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction and makes no sense. The court hereby orders

plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

The Second Amended Complaint must contain a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court’s subject matter

jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim(s)

showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for

judgment for the relief sought by the plaintiff. Each defendant

must be named in the caption and the body of the Second Amended 

Second Complaint. Plaintiff must allege with some degree of

particularity the overt acts which each defendant engaged in that

support plaintiff’s claim(s) against that defendant. Plaintiff

is informed that he cannot refer to the prior Complaint or

Amended Complaint. Local Rule 15-220, Local Rules of Practice,

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The County of Kern’s motion to quash service is granted.

2. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint that

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

complies with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice

and this Order within 30 days of the filing date of this Order. 

Failure to timely comply will result in the dismissal of this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00327-REC -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/04/05 Page 7 of 7