Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02792/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02792-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

PATRICIA SEXTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2792 DFL EFB PS

vs.

BEAU OF FEDERAL 

INVESTIGATION, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant. 

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned by

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On January 10, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissed her complaint with thirty days leave to amend. The thirty-day period

passed and plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court issued findings

and recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff

filed objections to those findings and recommendations, which the court construed as a request

for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Therefore, on March 19, 2007, the court

vacated its findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff thirty days leave to file an

amended complaint. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02792-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff timely filed a two-page document that she styles as an amended complaint. 

However, the amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claim, nor can any of its

allegations be construed as conferring jurisdiction over this action. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if

it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. 

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson v.

Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that there

is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff 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 its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and resolve all

doubts in plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson,

809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230.

In its January 10, 2007, order, the court notified plaintiff of the deficiencies of the

originally filed complaint, including its failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Rule 8 sets forth general rules of pleading for the Federal Courts. Rule 8(a)

requires complaints to include: (1) the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests; (2) a

Case 2:06-cv-02792-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 The complaint also fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of

pleadings. 

2

 Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the “GOP has had a death hold on me, even

my theeth [sic] have been tampered with. I’ve lost one dog, now I have a beautiful black lab, I

know is going to die before his time.” Amended Complaint, at p.1.

3

short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for relief. 

The amended complaint fails to meet any of these requirements.1

 

 The amended complaint, like the original complaint, is nearly incomprehensible.2

 It

contains no citation to federal law, and makes only vague allusions to various provisions of the

California Penal Code. See Complaint, at p. 2. Finally, plaintiff makes no demand for relief.

Upon review of plaintiff’s amended complaint, it is clear that no amendment can cure its defects.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend, and, 

2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 21, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02792-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3