Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01824-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Floyd Bourn
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
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 

STEVEN FLOYD BOURN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-01824-AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302(c)(21). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is 

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in 

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes 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). 

 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 09/12/14 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

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. 

 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

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

 Plaintiff asserts claims against the State of California for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 

the Ralph Civil Rights Act; fraud; malicious prosecution; vindictive prosecution; prosecution of 

false charges; obstruction of justice; abuse of process; misappropriation of public funds; denial of 

honest services; conversion; unlawful custom & practices; request for equitable relief; negligence; 

RICO violations; and trespass-fixed contest violations. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he 

was wrongfully arrested on either August 8, 2008, or August 15, 2008,1 and charged with failure 

to register as a sex offender in violation of California Penal Code § 290.012. Id. at 13–14. 

According to plaintiff, he has never been convicted of any sex offenses, and the entire incident 

actually occurred because Butte County officials mistook him for the actual perpetrator, who 

shares his same first and last name. Id. at 14. 

Plaintiff claims that he was arrested without warning in his home in Magalia, California 

by two police officers who told him that he was being arrested for being a sex offender. Id. Once 

plaintiff arrived at the sheriff’s office, another officer, Sergeant Ament, approached plaintiff with 

a file containing photographs of the perpetrator. Id. Both Sergeant Ament and one of his 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was arrested on both dates. ECF No. 1 at 13. 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 09/12/14 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

arresting officers looked at the picture and realized that plaintiff was not the perpetrator, but did 

nothing about it. Id. The next day, the photos had disappeared. Id. While in Butte County Jail 

plaintiff was asked multiple times to sign “sexual offender paper,” and although he initially 

refused, he ultimately signed the paperwork because his diabetes symptoms were causing him 

substantial pain. Id. At trial, it was revealed that the prosecution had a photo of the correct 

Steven Bourn in its possession. Id. at 17. Once that photo was disclosed to the court, the charges 

against plaintiff were dismissed. Id. Plaintiff requests general and special damages in the amount 

of $1,935,000.00 for his wrongful arrest and detention. 

The court finds that the Eleventh Amendment’s state sovereignty immunity provision bars 

plaintiff from pursuing his claims against California. The Eleventh Amendment provides that 

“[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or 

equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or 

by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. “The Supreme Court has 

consistently held that the federal courts lack jurisdiction not only over suits against a state brought 

by citizens of other states, as the literal language of the Amendment provides, but also over suits 

against such states brought by their own citizens.” Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825, 835 (2d 

Cir.1985) (citations omitted). The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a claim where the state has 

consented to be sued or Congress has abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 

Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000). However, Congress has not abrogated 

the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity as to any of plaintiff’s claims, and California has not 

consented to be sued. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (noting that 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity). Accordingly, the court finds that 

plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because his claims are barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must set forth the jurisdictional grounds 

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must include 

as a defendant a person or entity subject to liability for his claims. Plaintiff is advised in this 

regard that prosecutors are absolutely immune when acting in their role as advocate for the state, 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 09/12/14 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

including charging decisions. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). The complaint 

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved and include a short and plain 

statement of the facts as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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). The court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint, which is 91 pages long 

and contains 16 claims, does not meet this requirement. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint 

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 

function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 

and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and 

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 

Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled “Amended Complaint;” plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the 

amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result 

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: September 11, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01824-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 4