Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00043-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mitchell Dixon
Plaintiff
Ronald Stym
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD STYM,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-0043-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Mitchell Dixon, who proceeds without counsel in this action, has requested leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application 

in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any 

time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if 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. 

////

 

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 4
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

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327.

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. 

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(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 ordinarily 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).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint is completely unintelligible. It appears to quote from certain

disjointed statutes, court rules, and case law, and refers to various legal terms and concepts 

without providing any factual context. Indeed, although the complaint names Ronald Stym as a 

defendant, it does not allege any facts whatsoever about that individual, does not specify what 

type of claim is asserted against him, or even why this court has subject matter jurisdiction over 

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 4
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

this action. All that the court can possibly ascertain from the complaint is that plaintiff was the 

defendant in a criminal case in the Sacramento County Superior Court, and that defendant was

somehow dissatisfied with some of the proceedings in that case. Because plaintiff’s complaint, 

even when liberally construed, does not plead factual allegations that allow the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the named defendant is liable for any misconduct, it is subject to 

dismissal. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court finds it appropriate to grant 

plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended 

Complaint,” shall be typed or written in legible handwriting, shall address the deficiencies 

outlined in this order, and shall be filed within 28 days of this order. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order 

to make plaintiff’s first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is 

filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. If 

plaintiff determines that he is unable to amend his complaint in compliance with the court’s order 

at this juncture, he may alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims without

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28 days of this order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either (a) a first amended complaint in 

accordance with this order, or (b) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without 

prejudice.

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by 

the required deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including potential 

dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 4
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

41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00043-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 4