Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01635/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01635-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Sevan Kayaian
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

By separate order, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s 1

application to proceed in forma pauperis and has denied

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEVAN KAYAIAN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1635-OWW-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

(DOC. 1)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

civil action. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate 1

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304.

I. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 9
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

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and

state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. th

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6 Cir. 1998). th

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 9
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

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 9
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

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

On November 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a single-page

complaint naming the City of Fresno as Defendant. Plaintiff

alleges that a woman was arrested for prostitution; it appears

that he alleges that this was wrong because most of the woman who

are prostitutes do so because they were molested as children, and

now the city is violating them again by arresting them. Plaintiff

requests that the Court legalize prostitution because, “They are

people too!”

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff states no facts upon

which jurisdiction in this Court may be based. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; this

Court has a duty to determine its own subject matter

jurisdiction, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 4 of 9
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

raised on the Court’s own motion at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3); CSIBI v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n. 3 (9 Cir. 1982) th

(citing City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-512 (1973)).

A federal court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action

where it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Billingsley

v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9 Cir. 1989). It is Plaintiff’s th

burden to allege a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the Court’s jurisdiction depends unless the Court already

has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of

jurisdiction to support it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v.

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

Further, Local Rule 8-204 provides:

When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is

required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it

(i) shall appear as the first allegation of any

complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or

third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,”

(iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other

basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state

the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim.

Here, the only facts referred to concern conduct which is

criminal conduct pursuant to state law; Plaintiff has not alleged

that there was any denial of federal rights or other basis for

federal jurisdiction. Further, because Plaintiff’s complaint

concerns state punishment for conduct that is admittedly

criminal, it does not appear that Plaintiff could allege any set

of facts in support of his claim upon which jurisdiction could be

founded.

B. Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief

 May Be Granted 

Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice pleading,

whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule

8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a

plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement

sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Id. at

47. 

In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed

to identify any particular officer or city agent involved in the

conduct. There is no identification of the prostitute or of the

specific incident in question. No facts are stated that are

sufficient to put the Defendant on notice of the claim.

Again, because Plaintiff is seeking a change in state law

based on nothing other than a generalized and personal sense of

fairness, it does not appear that Plaintiff could allege facts

that would give notice of a claim upon which relief could be

granted.

Further, Plaintiff is seeking relief in the form of

legislation, relief which this Court is not empowered to grant.

It is not the function of the judiciary to legislate. Plaintiff’s

complaint is more appropriately directed to a legislative body or

representative.

C. Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed

provides:

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. th

1986).

Further, the statute plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658,

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit

has held that "[a] person 'subjects' another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). 

Because Plaintiff has failed to link the named defendants

with some affirmative act or omission, Plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed.

In light of the fact that the alleged wrong is arrest by the

state authorities for admittedly criminal conduct, it does not

appear that Plaintiff could allege any facts in support of a §

1983 claim with respect to the incident in question.

D. Frivolity

Finally, it appears that Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

because it lacks an arguable basis in law. The conduct in

question (arrest for prostitution) is not alleged to be unlawful

or improper; it is not alleged that the person arrested was

arrested without cause. Instead, Plaintiff’s claim is that a

lawful arrest for admittedly unlawful activity occurred, and

Plaintiff believes that it was unfair because of remote

sociological causes. Plaintiff seeks relief in the way of

legislation. Plaintiff’s claim is based on an undisputedly

meritless legal theory. Thus, it may be considered frivolous.

III. Recommendation 

For the reasons discussed above, it IS RECOMMENDED that the

Court dismiss this action without leave to amend and with

prejudice because 1) the complaint fails to state facts

constituting a basis for this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; 2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; 3) Plaintiff’s complaint is legally

frivolous; and 4) any attempt at amendment would be futile.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written 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.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01635-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 12/22/06 Page 9 of 9