Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02631/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02631-0/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARIA D. PADILLA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-2631 GEB AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires 

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). 

 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous or not, by 

drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 5
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

P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rulespolicies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. Under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for 

federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), 

(2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the 

plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a). 

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Rule 8(d)(1). Forms are 

available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available 

at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 

www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions 

cast in the form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to 

judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); 

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 

(2001). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th 

Cir. 2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 5
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

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 A. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff has named the U.S. Patent Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, the “Office of Management and Budget,” and the “Department of 

Motor Vehicles California (Stockton, California DMV),” as the sole defendants in this lawsuit. 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 1. The complaint alleges that it is brought under Articles I, III, IV and 

VI of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Fourth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments 

thereto, and state law. 

 It is very difficult to understand the meaning of the 95-page complaint, consisting of 56 

pages of allegations plus 43 pages of interspersed exhibits. As best the court can tell, plaintiff is 

complaining about an online application form or procedure for obtaining a patent. See Complaint 

at 3-4. 

 B. Analysis 

 The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for 

federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those 

things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff 

is obscured by the incomprehensible complaint, which consists of impenetrable sentences, 

passages from the U.S. and California Constitutions, what appear to be citations from statutes, 

regulations, forms and correspondence, legal conclusions or assertions, and other materials that 

appear to have been added, at random, to the complaint. Moreover, the complaint is written as 

one 56-page paragraph, making it particularly difficult to understand. The court cannot tell from 

examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or what 

relief plaintiff seeks. 

 In addition, the only defendants named in this lawsuit are immune from suit. The federal 

agencies plaintiff sues are immune from suit. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) 

(“[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from 

suit”). If the complaint contains an allegation that this immunity is waived, the court cannot find 

Case 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

it in the complaint. In any amended complaint, any alleged waiver must be clearly and separately 

alleged. 

 The state agency plaintiff sues is also immune from suit in this court. See Braunstein v. 

Arizona Dep't of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177, 1188 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & 

Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-102 (1984), for the proposition that “sovereign immunity 

extends to state agencies and to damage claims against state officials acting in their official 

capacity”). The court can identify no alleged waiver of sovereign immunity, nor any basis for 

overriding it, in the complaint. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 

statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 

possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 

(Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

Case 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

2. The complaint (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED because it does not contain the short and 

plain statement of the claim required by Rule 8(a), and because it names only defendants 

who are immune from suit. 

3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 5