Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00537-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

EUGENE E. ISAACSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0537 MCE EFB PS

vs.

SHAWN BERRIGAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 15,

2007, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court dismissed the original complaint for failure to state

a claim, and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an

amended complaint, which the court again dismissed for failure to state a claim and granted

plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint. 

Upon review of the second amended complaint, the court has determined that plaintiff

has again failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the court

recommends that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00537-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 10/09/07 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

Having twice failed to plead facts establishing this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff now attempts to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Although he alleges that defendants are citizens of California and he is a

citizen of Michigan, and that he seeks relief in the amount of $100,000, he fails to state a claim

for which relief may be granted. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires a complaint to include a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to

give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41 (1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of

action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id.

(citations omitted). 

Here, plaintiff makes vague allegations of a conspiracy between defendants to steal his

boat and “deprive him of his civil rights.” The allegations fail to set forth the requisite elements

of any particular civil rights cause of action. Despite granting plaintiff two opportunities to

clarify his claims, the court is unable to discern what particular causes of action plaintiff seeks to

assert in this case. As such, the court finds that the second amended complaint fails to give

defendants “fair notice” of plaintiff’s claims. 

 In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The action 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:07-cv-00537-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 10/09/07 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

3

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that 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: October 9, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00537-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3