Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01197/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Ayala Alvarez
Plaintiff
Gregory
Defendant
Johnson
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

. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY GREGORY, Badge #2520,

SGT. JOHNSON, Badge #68,

Defendants.

 /

CIV S-06-1197 GEB PAN (GGH) PS

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by

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

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

However, the determination that 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 a 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

Case 2:06-cv-01197-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/29/06 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

 Plaintiff has filed several proposed complaints in this court based on his eligibility to 1

proceed in forma pauperis; virtually all of the complaints challenge various actions of law

enforcement and include many of the same defendants. This court has fully addressed the merits

of at least one of these cases, Alvarez v. Treat et al., Civ. S-05-0169 DFL PAN (JFM) PS. 

2

relief against an immune defendant. The complaint must also comply with the general rules of

pleading set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires that complaints set forth (1) the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing

entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Additional general grounds

for dismissing a proposed complaint are improper form (Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)); lack of subject

matter jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)); and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

(Rule 12(b)(6)). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

The present complaint alleges defendant law enforcement officers caused 1

plaintiff emotional distress while he was incarcerated in the Sacramento County Main Jail on

May 7, 2002, by Deputy Gregory’s false statement to plaintiff, endorsed by Sargent Johnson, that

plaintiff had exposed himself to the call nurse. Plaintiff asserts the statement was intended “to

make me believe I was never going to leieve the jail or prison so I would comet suicide so no one

would ever find out what law enforcement did to me and my children [sic].” Plaintiff alleges

causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, abuse of process,

“false light” and invasion of privacy, and asserts generally violations of his rights under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff has attached a “Points and Authorities”common to

many of his other complaints, that asserts he is entitled to recover damages based on principles of

strict liability in tort due to his compliance with the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act;

however, plaintiff’s attachments demonstrate only that on April 27, 2006, Sacramento County

denied plaintiff’s claim because untimely filed. Plaintiff seeks $1,500,000 damages plus interest

and costs. 

Case 2:06-cv-01197-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/29/06 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

The complaint does not establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff has alleged only state law claims which may not be considered by this court unless

ancillary to this court’s federal question jurisdiction or based upon the parties’ diversity of

citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction

and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). 

 “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving

the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353

(9th Cir. 1996). Unless a complaint presents a plausible assertion of a substantial federal right, a

federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776

(1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as to be patently without merit cannot serve as

the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372,

1379-80 (1974). 

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating this court’s subject

matter jurisdiction, and the court is unable to discern such jurisdiction based on the current

pleading. Plaintiff’s passing reference to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments does not create

a federal claim based upon these limited facts. 

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant

leave to file an amended complaint. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. E. D. Cal. L. R. 15-220. The court’s jurisdiction, each claim and

the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged in the amended complaint. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a).

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

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01197-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/29/06 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

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 federal law, 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; 

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

result in a recommendation this action be dismissed .

DATED:6/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6:ALVAREZ.ifp.1197

Case 2:06-cv-01197-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 06/29/06 Page 4 of 4