Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 48:1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation 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 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY J. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-0877 - IEG (POR)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

vs. DISMISSING COMPLAINT

DEPUTY EDWARD MACCONOGHY;

SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE; and SGT.

DAVE PASEMAN,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 25, 2011. [Doc. No. 1.] The Court granted

Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed her complaint without prejudice under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on

July 28, 2011. For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s FAC.

DISCUSSION

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted” or is “ frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 13 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 2
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 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction,” there is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative

may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a cognizable claim and is frivolous to

the extent it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleges the sheriff’s department has

inadequately responded to her complaints that she has been stalked and received threatening phone

calls. See Am. Compl. However, she fails to assert any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction, fails to identify any constitutional or statutory rights that Defendants violated, and

fails to allege any facts establishing a cause of action against Defendants.

Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants,

her allegations fail to present a cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support a cognizable

legal theory against Defendant. Although the Court must assume Plaintiff can prove the facts she

alleges in her complaint, the Court may not “supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. .

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a Second

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

cautioned her Second Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on

references to other pleadings. Plaintiff is further cautioned that her Second Amended Complaint is

her final chance to state a claim. If Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not state a claim, 

the Court will dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2011 __________________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 13 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 2