Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Benitez
Defendant
Carlos Gilbert Law
Plaintiff
Valero Gas Station
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS GILBERT LAW, CASE NO. CV F 06-1061 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

KENNY BENITEZ,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this purported civil rights action. On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed his original form 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint (“original complaint”) to allege that defendant Kenny Benitez (“Mr. Benitez”),

a Valero gas station clerk, assaulted plaintiff. The original complaint also named “Valero Gas Station

Owners” as defendants and sought “money damages from each person held lible [sic].” This Court

issued its August 17, 2006 order to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint on grounds that it failed to

allege a cognizable claim and to establish this Court’s jurisdiction and appeared intended to vex

defendants. 

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 6
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

On August 28, 2006, plaintiff filed his form amended complaint (“amended complaint”) to

appear to name Mr. Benitez and “Valero gas station owners” as defendants. This Court construes the

amended complaint to attempt to allege civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“section 1981").

The amended complaint acknowledges that “defendants are not under color of state law” and alleges

plaintiff was denied service “because of my race.”

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court

must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, which “is frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Moreover, “[a] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot

possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. th

Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua sponte dismissal may be made before process is served

th

on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss

th

frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte prior to service of process on defendants). 

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid, shall dismiss a case at any time if the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-1228. A federal court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 6
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

it is based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” 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. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex 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);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss a case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim 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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294

(9 Cir. 1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of th

any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to

support claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco

Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

As further explained below, the amended complaint demonstrates that plaintiff is entitled to offer

no evidence for its vague, deficient claims.

General Deficiencies

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . 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

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 6
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

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short 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.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Dept. of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need not th

outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these elements

exist.” Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB th

Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading policy of th

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 (9 Cir. 1984). th

A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant engaged

in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint lacks a short, plain statement of this Court’s jurisdiction.

Although plaintiff proceeds on a form civil rights amended complaint, as discussed below, the amended

complaint fails to satisfy section 1981 requirements. This Court surmises plaintiff refers to section 1981

as a subterfuge to attempt to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. The amended complaint establishes neither

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The amended complaint fails to allege elements of either a section 1981 or state tort claim to

demonstrate plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Moreover, in personam jurisdiction is required when a judgment is sought as to a defendant

personally. Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of a court’s jurisdiction and without it, a court

“is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct.

1563, 1572 (1999). “Because a court without jurisdiction over the parties cannot render a valid

judgement, [the court] must address Defendants’ personnel jurisdiction argument before reaching the

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 4 of 6
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

merits of the case.” OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10 Cir. th

1998).

Federal courts lack nationwide personal jurisdiction and have no broader power over persons

outside the state in which they sit than do local state courts. Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolph Wolff & Co.,

Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104-105, 108 S.Ct. 404, 410 (1987); see F.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

In addition to not establishing subject matter jurisdiction, the amended complaint fails to

establish in personam jurisdiction over defendants. In the absence of subject matter or in personam

jurisdiction, this Court is unable to proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Section 1981 Deficiencies

Plaintiff attempts to proceed under section 1981, which provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every

State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and

to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and

property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains,

penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

Section 1981 addresses protection of a limited range of civil rights, including to make and

enforce contracts, to sue and to give evidence. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1232.

“Racially motivated misuse of governmental power” falls in section 1981's ambit when one of the

enunciated rights is denied. Hall v. Pennsylvania State Police, 570 F.2d 86, 91 (3 Cir. 1978). Section rd

1981 is intended “to proscribe discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts against, or in

favor of, any race.” McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 295-296, 96 S.Ct. 2574

(1976). 

The amended complaint fails to address section 1981 subject matter. The amended complaint

does not address making or enforcing contracts, suing or giving evidence. The amended complaint fails

to allege a section 1981 claim or an otherwise cognizable claim. A further attempt at amendment is not

warranted.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to take advantage of cost-free filing to vex a defendant. Such attempt provides further grounds

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 5 of 6
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

to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without prejudice on grounds

that the amended complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege a cognizable section 1981

or otherwise valid claim and appears intended to vex defendants.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than October 5, 2006,

plaintiff may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on the magistrate judge in

compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will then review the

magistrate judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff is 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: August 30, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 09/01/06 Page 6 of 6