Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02855/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02855-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Leonard Butler
Plaintiff
W. Gregory Klein
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 

JAMES LEONARD BUTLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. GREGORY KLEIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will be granted. However, in screening Plaintiff’s 

complaint, as required by Section 1915(a)(2), the Court concludes that the complaint does not 

allege facts establishing federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend the 

complaint. 

I. SCREENING 

 A. Legal Standard 

The federal IFP statute requires 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). 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 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 

Courts review the complaint that initiates the case to perform this screening function. They are 

guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are available online at 

www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

Court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 

The Court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 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 

 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

B. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff’s complaint names seven defendants, several of which appear to be attorneys as 

Plaintiff lists their state bar number. ECF No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff states he is seeking 

“$15,089,853.50 payable in Specie.” Id. Plaintiff appears to complain of a state court proceeding 

where he was ordered to appear and where an affidavit was sealed over his objection. Id. He 

complains of the actions of two state court judges (Defendants Anderson and Kellegrew) and the 

clerk of the court (Defendant Galkin). Id. Plaintiff requests investigation of the state court case 

and prosecution of all “wrongdoers.” Id. at 9. 

C. Analysis 

 The Complaint does not sufficiently plead a basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff states 

the basis is diversity of citizenship, but then does not plead the citizenship of the Defendants. 

ECF No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff pleads that he is a citizen of California, and the alleged address of each 

Defendant is in California, thus it appears diversity of citizenship is lacking. See Caterpillar Inc. 

v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity of 

citizenship” where “the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each 

defendant.”). 

 The complaint thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) as it 

does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or 

a short and plaint statement showing Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact nature of what 

happened to Plaintiff is unclear from the complaint, other than he complains of a proceeding in 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 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 

state court and the sealing of an affidavit. Plaintiff names seven Defendants, but only appears to 

make allegations against three—the two judges and clerk of court. The Court cannot tell from 

examining the complaint what legal wrong was done to Plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any 

alleged harm is connected to the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this Court’s jurisdiction, does not comply 

with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Rather than recommending 

dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the 

complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable cause of 

action. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 

statement of Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 

possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 

4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 The amended complaint must not force the Court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the Court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 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 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

 As Plaintiff has named as defendants some state defendants, he may have intended to 

pursue an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege that 

defendants acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the 

Constitution or federal statutes. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 

2021). If Plaintiff intends to pursue a claim under §1983 against state judges for their conduct in 

a state court proceeding, Plaintiff should bear in mind that: “Judges are absolutely immune from 

damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts... . A judge loses 

absolute immunity only when [the judge] acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or performs 

an act that is not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Further, “[c]ourt clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights 

violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Acres 

Bonusing, Inc v. Marston, 17 F.4th 901, 916 (9th Cir. 2021). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 

that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 

sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8. If Plaintiff fails to timely 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 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 

comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice 

of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 28, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02855-DJC-SCR Document 4 Filed 08/28/24 Page 6 of 6