Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-mc-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-mc-00012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Frausto
Defendant
Daryl Leon Hanson
Plaintiff

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

DARYL LEON HANSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BOB FRAUSTO., )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07mc00012 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Daryl Leon Hanson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action on March 28, 2007. His

complaint consists of one page and the exact nature of his claim is not apparent.

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that 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). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

Case 1:07-mc-00012-DLB Document 4 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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

and 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. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must 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 the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

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

B. Discussion

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in January 2007, he went to visit his father at an

apartment complex in Fresno and smelled crystal meth. The remainder of his complaint states:

I could not enter this premises due to my lack of badge and gun, where as I worked for

Bob Frausto as a San Diego Sheriff’s Department Drug Informant at the Lemon Grove

Station in 1992.

Plaintiff’s complaint is totally deficient and fails to meet the pleading standard of Rule 8. 

It fails to state any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and wholly fails to state a short and plain

statement of his claim. In fact, although Plaintiff mentions Defendant Bob Frausto in the

complaint, he does not make any allegations against him. Instead, Plaintiff sets forth a short

narrative without any indication of his claims. Plaintiff also fails to state his requested relief.

Case 1:07-mc-00012-DLB Document 4 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

In its current form, then, the Complaint states no discernable claims for relief. The

complaint is so deficient, in fact, that it is difficult for this Court to analyze. However, given

Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant and the fact that the Court is unable to conclude that he

cannot cure these deficiencies, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his

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 supercedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any

function in the case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s complaint should be clearly titled, “First Amended 

Complaint,” and shall refer to the case number assigned to this action. If Plaintiff does not file

an amended complaint within this time frame, the Court will recommend that this action

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-mc-00012-DLB Document 4 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3