Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01682/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Carvante
Defendant
Kenneth Ardell Smith
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ARDELL SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1682 GEB EFB PS

vs.

RICKY CARVANTE,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to

prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

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

Determining plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time

if it determines 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. 

Case 2:07-cv-01682-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 10/03/07 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

2

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a pro so plaintiff must still satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will

not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level

on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Upon review of the complaint, the court has determined that it fails to comply with Rule

8. In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests and a demand for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

The complaint fails to meet any of these requirements.

The court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court is a

court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution

and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic

federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and

“diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint

(1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within

the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized by a federal statute

that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369

U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically

allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir.

1987). 

Case 2:07-cv-01682-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 10/03/07 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

3

A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless demonstrated

otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at

any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc.,

93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the complaint contains no reference to a federal cause of action, nor do its

allegations invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, an agent of

the “Metro Parole Division” refused to take plaintiff’s side and accused him of not signing in as

a drug offender. None of these allegations are sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, nor do

they state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the complaint must be

dismissed. However, in light of this Circuit’s liberal construal of pro se pleadings, the court will

grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he is informed that the court cannot

refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. 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). Accordingly, once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves

any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the

original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint

are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

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

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

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended

Case 2:07-cv-01682-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 10/03/07 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

4

complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 2, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01682-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 4