Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01360/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01360-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

QUINTON PRUITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1360 DFL GGH PS

vs.

MARINE TERMINALS CORP., et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, 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

72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the

showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 

The determination that plaintiff 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 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. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-01360-DFL-GGH Document 7 Filed 08/25/05 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 1

 Neither does it comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of pleadings. 

2

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 v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The court cannot determine whether the complaint is frivolous or can be amended

to state a claim because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 sets forth

general rules of pleading in the Federal Courts. Complaints are required to set forth (1) the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing entitlement of relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). The complaint does not meet these requirements. It

contains no allegation of the basis for this court’s jurisdiction, nor does it set forth a short and

plain statement showing entitlement to relief. 

 It appears that plaintiff seeks review of a decision by the U.S. Department of

Labor Benefits Review Board denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. This court has no

jurisdiction to conduct such a review. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), “any person adversely

affected or aggrieved by a final order of the Board may obtain a review of that order in the United

States court of appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred, by filing in such court within

sixty days following the issuance of such Board order a written petition praying that the order be

modified or set aside.” Accordingly, because this court has no jurisdiction to review a decision

by the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board, the complaint is dismissed. Although it

does not appear that plaintiff can cure this pleading defect, he will be given an opportunity to file

an amended complaint. 

Case 2:05-cv-01360-DFL-GGH Document 7 Filed 08/25/05 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

3

Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint must bear the civil docket number

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint;” plaintiff must file an original and

two copies of the amended complaint. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior or superseded 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 an amended pleading is filed, the original pleading no longer

serves any function in the case. Id.; see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 15-220. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint

within thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint

will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

DATED: 8/24/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

pruitt1360.ifp

Case 2:05-cv-01360-DFL-GGH Document 7 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3