Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00542/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00542-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia D. Sexton
Plaintiff
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 

PATRICIA D. SEXTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00542-GEB-AC 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her first amended 

complaint on August 14, 2015, pursuant to the court’s order. ECF No. 9. This proceeding was 

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 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 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-00542-GEB-AC Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint to be so vague and 

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a 

claim for relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain 

statement 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). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts defendant 

engaged in that support plaintiff's claims. Id. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is largely illegible, 

and those parts that are legible do not include cognizable legal claims or comprehensible factual 

allegations. ECF No. 9.1 Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s amended 

complaint be dismissed because the court is unable to determine whether it is frivolous or states a 

claim for relief. 

 The court will also recommend that the dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint be 

without leave to amend. Courts must grant leave to amend where justice so requires. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a). A district court, however, may in its discretion deny leave to amend “due to ‘undue 

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance 

 

1

 The face sheet of the complaint, which is typed, states that plaintiff is suing various county, 

state and federal entities for “matters that cover stem cell research, behavioral science, personal 

injury, and other matters related to harsh government techniques against the Plaintiff.” ECF No. 

9 at 1. The body of the complaint is incomprehensible. 

Case 2:15-cv-00542-GEB-AC Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 

F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). District courts have particularly broad discretion to dismiss 

without leave to amend where a plaintiff has amended once already. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. 

Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Feb. 10, 2009). Plaintiff has 

already been give one chance to amend her complaint with detailed instructions by the court. 

Nevertheless, she has submitted an amended complaint that does not improve upon her previous 

complaint. Accordingly, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be 

dismissed without leave to amend because leave to amend would be futile. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s 

amended complaint, ECF No. 9, be dismissed without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” 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). 

DATED: September 22, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00542-GEB-AC Document 10 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3