Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLY A. PEACEMAKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SARA ALEGRIA,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00118-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiffs have submitted the affidavits required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiffs are

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ requests 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.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Case 2:20-cv-00118-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 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

27

28

2

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. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiffs claim this suit arises under federal question jurisdiction. The allegations in the 

complaint are insufficient to identify any conceivable federal claim. Although plaintiffs list a 

number of federal statutes as grounds for federal question jurisdiction, see ECF No. 1 at 5, this 

does not establish the federal claim or claims plaintiffs are attempting to raise in their complaint. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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). Plaintiffs must allege with at 

least some degree of particularity overt acts that defendant engaged in that support plaintiffs’ 

claim. Id. Because plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended 

Case 2:20-cv-00118-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 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

27

28

3

complaint.

If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, plaintiffs must set forth the jurisdictional 

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

Further, plaintiffs must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation 

of each of the named plaintiffs’ federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In addition, plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order 

to make plaintiffs’ amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 plaintiffs file 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. Plaintiffs’ requests to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 3, and 4) are granted;

2. Plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed; and 

3. Plaintiffs are 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, 

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

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint;” plaintiffs 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: February 4, 2020

15 peacemaker118.ifp-lta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00118-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 3