Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02099-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASONJA PORTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2099 MCE GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

__________________________________/

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 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiffs have submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that

plaintiffs are 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). 

Determining plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the

required inquiry. 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

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (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.

Review of the complaint indicates that it must be amended due to the following

irregularities. First, plaintiffs Lasonja Porter and Christopher Jones, Sr., are parents of minors

Christopher Jones, Jr., Christine Jones, Cairo Jones, and Cyree Jones, and have brought this

action on behalf of themselves and as guardians ad litem for these minor children. While a nonattorney may represent him or herself in a lawsuit, he or she has no authority to appear as an

attorney for others. “[A] parent or guardian may not bring an action on behalf of a minor child

without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Plaintiffs will therefore be granted thirty days in which to obtain counsel for the minor children.

Of all the named defendants, plaintiffs have failed to explain how defendant

Kathleen Hunter violated their rights.

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to amend their complaint in order to explain

how this individual violated their rights.

Furthermore, plaintiffs have alleged various accusations against Ilya Bevugloz,

Jennifer Elllasces, Officer R. Cordova, and Officer A. Delao; however, plaintiffs have failed to

name these individuals as defendants. On amendment, plaintiffs shall clarify whether these

individuals are named as defendants.

Plaintiffs are informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 4
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

an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself. 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). Accordingly, once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir.1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 262 (9th Cir.).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed.

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 Federal law, 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. 

4. Plaintiffs are granted thirty days from the date of this order to obtain counsel

for their minor children and file a substitution of attorneys. Failure to obtain counsel will result

in a recommendation that the minor children be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 12/4/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

GGH:076 - Porter2099.amd.wpd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02099-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 4