Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01061-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Benitez
Defendant
Carlos Gilbert Law
Plaintiff
Valero Gas Station
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS GILBERT LAW, CASE NO. CV F 06-1061 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

vs.

KENNY BENITEZ,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this purported civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds

with a form section 1983 complaint (“complaint”) to allege that defendant Kenny Benitez (“Mr.

Benitez”), a Valero gas station clerk, assaulted plaintiff. The complaint also names “Valero Gas Station

Owners” as defendants and seeks “money damages from each person held lible [sic].”

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 7
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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court

must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, which “is frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Moreover, “[a] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot

possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. th

Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua sponte dismissal may be made before process is served

th

on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss

th

frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte prior to service of process on defendants). 

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid, shall dismiss a case at any time ifthe court determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-1228. A federal court may 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.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse the judicial process

by relitigating claims decided in prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981);

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss a case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim 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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294

(9 Cir. 1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of th

any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to

support claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco

Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

As further explained below, the complaint demonstrates that plaintiff is entitled to offer no

evidence for its vague, deficient claims.

General Deficiencies

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 7
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

United States Dept. of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need not th

outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these elements

exist.” Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis v. ACB th

Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading policy of th

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 (9 Cir. 1984). th

A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant engaged

in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

Plaintiff’s complaint lacks a short, plain statement of this Court’s jurisdiction. Although plaintiff

proceeds on a form 1983 complaint, as discussed below, the complaint fails to satisfy section 1983

requirements. This Court surmises plaintiff refers to section 1983 as a subterfuge to attempt to invoke

this Court’s jurisdiction. The complaint establishes neither federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 nor diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint fails to allege all elements of

either a section 1983 or state tort claim to demonstrate plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Moreover, in personam jurisdiction is required when a judgment is sought as to a defendant

personally. Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of a court’s jurisdiction and without it, a court

“is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct.

1563, 1572 (1999). “Because a court without jurisdiction over the parties cannot render a valid

judgement, [the court] must address Defendants’ personnel jurisdiction argument before reaching the

merits of the case.” OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10 Cir. th

1998).

Federal courts lack nationwide personal jurisdiction and have no broader power over persons

outside the state in which they sit than do local state courts. Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolph Wolff & Co.,

Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104-105, 108 S.Ct. 404, 410 (1987); see F.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

In addition to not establishing subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint fails to establish in

personam jurisdiction over defendants. In the absence of subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, this

Court is unable to proceed on plaintiff’s claims.

/ / /

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 4 of 7
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

The Complaint’s Section 1983 Deficiencies

Plaintiff proceeds on a form complaint under section 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under the 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 proceedings for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) defendant acted under color of state

law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2) defendant deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Gibson v. United

States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. 1986). The complaint fails to state colorable claims against a th

defendant. The complaints fails to a allege defendant acted under color of state law. The complaint

points to no constitutional right of which a defendant deprived plaintiff.

Moreover, section 1983 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of defendant and deprivation allegedly suffered. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “[a]

person ‘subjects’ another to 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 made.” Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). The complaint fails to satisfy the linking requirement as to a th

defendant and to articulate how a defendant deprived plaintiff of constitutional rights and resulting harm.

Municipalities and other local government units are persons to whom section 1983 applies.

Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see also Board of County Comm’rs v.

Brown, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1387-1388 (1997); Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9 Cir. th

1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 950 (1997); Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 791 (9 Cir. 1995). A defendant th

has acted under color of state law when he or she has “exercised power ‘possessed by virtue of state law

and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state law.’” West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)); Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-318 (1981); Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9 Cir.), cert. denied,

th

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 5 of 7
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

118 S.Ct. 559 (1997); Vang v. Xiong, 944 F.2d 476, 479 (9 Cir. 1991); Shah v. County of Los Angeles,

th

797 F.2d 743, 746 (9 Cir. 1986). Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. See th

Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-708 (9 Cir. 1991). th

The complaint names private party defendants which are unable to act under color of state law

or to exercise power possessed by virtue of state law. There are no allegations that a defendant

conspired with a state official to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights to constitute action under color

of state law. Plaintiff appears unable to state a cognizable section 1983 claim under the facts set forth

in the complaint.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to take advantage of cost-free filing to vex a defendant. Such attempt provides further grounds

to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

Attempt At Amendment

Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to attempt to amend his complaint to cure deficiencies.

Plaintiff is further admonished that this Court’s Local Rule 15-220 requires an amended complaint to

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). After the filing th

of an amended complaint, the original pleadings serves no further function. Thus, in an amended

complaint, each claim and involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint and GRANTS plaintiff leave to amend;

2. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than September 22, 2006, to file an amended complaint; and

3. Admonishes plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with

this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey

a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01061-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 08/17/06 Page 7 of 7