Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01221-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Anthony Gonzalez
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCOS ANTHONY GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-01221---BAM

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 4)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Marcos Anthony Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on 

October 19, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. 

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court applies the same pleading 

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 1:15-cv-01221-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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

8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all 

factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions 

as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges “(1) Discrimination of Race 2 Assault and (3) threats on plaintiff by 

Tulare county sheriffs (4) 8th amendment” and asserts that his civil rights “have been violated by 

police harassment [sic] civil Rights Act of 1964 [Plaintiff] prays on these grounds that relief will 

be paid.” (Doc. 4 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks 32.5 million dollars in damages from the Tulare County 

Sheriff’s Department main jail. The caption of his complaint lists numerous deputy sheriffs. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, as with his original complaint, fails to allege any 

facts; therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff

will be given a final opportunity to amend his complaint and is provided with the following 

pleading and legal standards to assist him with filing an amended complaint.

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that he is entitled to relief.” 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). While detailed 

allegations are not required, a plaintiff must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief [,]” 

Case 1:15-cv-01221-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 5
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

which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s mere labels of purported violations are not sufficient to satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiff must set forth the facts underlying his claims. If 

Plaintiff amends his complaint, he must include the factual basis of his allegations, including 

what happened, when it happened and who was involved. Simply listing the parties or causes of 

action is not sufficient. Plaintiff must explain his case with specificity. 

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b)

Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also requires a plaintiff to state claims 

in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Moreover, “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a 

separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

Plaintiff’s complaint style and formatting fails to comply with Rule 10(b). He must do more than 

simply list his purported causes of action. In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he must comply with 

Rule 10(b).

C. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

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 plainly 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. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

section 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 causes the deprivation of which complaint is 

Case 1:15-cv-01221-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 5
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

made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to specifically identify or link any of the 

defendants identified in his caption to any constitutional claim(s). In any amended complaint, 

Plaintiff must identify each defendant and then allege what each individual defendant did or did 

not do that resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights.

D. Excessive Force

Plaintiff appears to be complaining about an alleged assault by employees of the Tulare 

County jail in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, it is not clear from Plaintiff’s 

complaint if he was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner at the time of the alleged 

constitutional violations. 

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment only protects 

convicted prisoners. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). It is the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that protects pretrial detainees from the use of 

excessive force which amounts to punishment, Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 

1197 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 n. 10), and the Fourth Amendment sets the 

applicable constitutional limitations for considering such claims, Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 

F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1198) (quotation marks omitted).

In resolving claims of excessive force brought by pretrial detainees, the Fourth 

Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard applies. Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. The inquiry is 

whether Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances 

confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Id. (citing Graham, 490 

U.S. at 397) (quotation marks omitted).

E. Discrimination

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all persons who 

are similarly situated should be treated alike. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th 

Cir. 2001); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 

L.Ed .2d 313 (1985). To state an Equal Protection claim, Plaintiff must show that the defendants 

Case 1:15-cv-01221-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 5
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

acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based on membership in a protected 

class, Lee, 250 F.3d at 686; Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. 

denied, 525 U.S. 1154, 119 S.Ct. 1058, 143 L.Ed.2d 63 (1999), or that similarly situated 

individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate 

state purpose, Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to 

comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10(b). Plaintiff’s amended complaint also 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, 

in an abundance of caution, and because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given a final 

opportunity to amend his complaint to cure these deficiencies to the extent he can do so in good 

faith. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint; and 

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action 

for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01221-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/27/15 Page 5 of 5