Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01860/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01860-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glinda Page
Defendant
Kenneth Smith
Plaintiff
Williams
Defendant
Niggat Zaka
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SMITH, No. CIV.S-06-1860 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

GLINDA PAGE, Parole Officer,

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

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 the undersigned by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(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.

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 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

2

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. 

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). Under this standard, a court shall dismiss a claim as

frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the 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. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

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

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 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

3

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff’s claim. Id. 

The complaint fails to meet these requirements. It

consists of three difficult to decipher handwritten pages, along with

three additional pages of photocopied California statutes. The

defendants named in the caption are “Sacramento Metro [Parole] Unit,”

“Dr. Niggat Zaka,” “[Parole] Officer Glinda Page,” and “[Parole]

Officer Ms. Williams.” (Compl. at 1.) The body of the complaint is

not clear but suggests that plaintiff is a parolee subject to certain

mental health treatment requirements imposed by court order and that

plaintiff wishes to refuse that treatment. In this regard, the

complaint refers to an incident during January of 2001 at the

“[Psych] Services North B. St. Office Clinic” where plaintiff

apparently refused certain mental health medications and was

incarcerated, but this also is not entirely clear. (Compl. at 2.)

Nonetheless, no discernible federal claim for relief is alleged. 

Therefore, the court finds that the complaint’s vague allegations do

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 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

4

not amount to a short and plain statement of a claim showing that

plaintiff is entitled to relief or set forth any factual allegations

giving rise to federal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1),

(2). 

While the complaint alleges no plausible basis for federal

jurisdiction, the court recognizes that plaintiff may be attempting

to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation

of his civil rights. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to bring

a § 1983 action the complaint does not allege how the conduct

complained of has resulted in a deprivation of a right, privilege or

immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person

acting under color of state law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120

(9th Cir. 1992); Lopez v. Dept. of Health Serv., 939 F.2d 881, 883

(9th Cir. 1991). The Civil Rights Act provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ...

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen

of the United States ... to the deprivation of

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the

deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode,

423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does

an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 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

 California’s personal injury statute of limitations applicable 1

to § 1983 actions changed from one year to two years effective

January 1, 2003. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. 

5

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Finally, the court notes that the incident complained of by

plaintiff apparently took place in 2001, over five years prior to the

filing of the complaint. Thus, any § 1983 claim arising from those

events would appear to be untimely under the applicable one-year

statute of limitations. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th 1

Cir. 1999)(statute of limitations for § 1983 claim is governed by

period set forth in state tort law for personal injury actions).

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court will grant leave to file an

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he

must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear and

concise factual allegations describing the events which underlie

plaintiff’s claims.

In addition, 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

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 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

6

initial complaint 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. Any amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary

factual description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 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

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, 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.

DATED: December 20, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\smith1860.ifp.lta

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 12/20/06 Page 6 of 6