Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01551-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Carson
Plaintiff
Nicole C. Mitchell
Defendant
Paladin Legal Defenders
Defendant
Charles K. Stoddard
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

LARRY CARSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CHARLES K. STODDARD, ESQ., )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-1551-LJO-SMS 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (DOC. 5)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 8)

ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT

OF INMATE FILING FEE BY

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND

TO PLAINTIFF A BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT FORM 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS ON THE

DOCKET 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 10
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

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Discharge of the Order to Show Cause

On January 4, 2008, the Court issued an order to Plaintiff

to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff responded on

January 15, 2008, and submitted an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. Accordingly, the order to show cause will be

discharged.

II. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

on February 4, 2008. Plaintiff has made the showing required by

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of

$350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is

obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty

percent of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s

trust account. 

III. Directions to the Department of Corrections 

The California Department of Corrections is required to send

to the Clerk of the Court payments from Plaintiff’s account each

time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the

statutory filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

IV. Screening the Complaint

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 10
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

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 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

(9 Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, th

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

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). A th

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

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

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, 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 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). th

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 10
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

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id. 

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. 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. th

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

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); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

Here, in the complaint, filed on October 24, 2007, Plaintiff

sues Charles K. Stoddard and Paladin Legal Defenders, whom

Plaintiff alleges he hired in May 2006 by transmitting a check in

the amount of $1,832.56 for Mr. Stoddard’s services; Defendant

Stoddard’s secretary, Defendant Nicole C. Mitchell, apparently

negotiated the check. Then the attorney took himself off of

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 10
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

Plaintiff’s case without refunding any of the money. Plaintiff

alleges that he is suing for the money and damages, including

punitive damages, and he alleges that Defendant or Defendants

engaged in negligent misconduct by a state official under color

of state law. (Cmplt pp. 1-3.)

V. Civil Rights Claim

Plaintiff refers to action taken under color of state law.

It is thus likely that Plaintiff is attempting to state a claim

under the Civil Rights Act, which 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. To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a

plaintiff must plead that defendants acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the 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. th

1986).

Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that the Defendants are

attorneys, a law firm, and/or staff members thereof. It further

appears that Plaintiff paid for the Defendant’s services. Thus,

it appears that the Defendants were acting privately. No facts

are alleged that warrant a conclusion that Defendants were acting

under color of state law. Generally, private parties are not

acting under color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d

702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). However, “[a]ction taken by private

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 10
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

individuals may be ‘under color of state law’ where there is

‘significant’ state involvement in the action.” Howerton v.

Gabica, 708 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court notes that even if Defendant had been acting as

Plaintiff’s public defender, it is established that a public

defender does not act under color of state law when performing a

lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a

criminal proceeding. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317,

325 (1981); Rivera v. Green, 775 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9 Cir. 1985). th

Accordingly, the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8 in that it does not state a civil rights claim. It does not

allege that any defendant acted under color of state law or that

some of the Defendants’ actions deprived Plaintiff of any federal

right.

VI. State Contract or Tort Claim

Plaintiff also appears to allege that an agreement between d

Defendant Stoddard and him concerning legal representation was

made and was breached by Defendant Stoddard, who failed to

perform by failing to provide legal services for which Plaintiff

had contracted. It is also possible that Plaintiff is seeking

recovery in tort for allegedly substandard legal practice on the

part of Defendant Stoddard. 

It is Plaintiff’s burden to allege 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. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(1); McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298

U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Local Rule 8-204 provides:

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 6 of 10
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

When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is

required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), it

(i) shall appear as the first allegation of any

complaint, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or

third party claim; (ii) shall be styled “Jurisdiction,”

(iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other

basis of federal jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state

the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim.

Here, Plaintiff fails to state any basis for subject matter

jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff does not appear to be

asserting any right arising under federal statute, treaty, or the

Constitution that would confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

Further, Plaintiff, who is presently in custody at Avenal

State Prison in California, does not include any allegations

regarding the citizenship of Defendant or of Plaintiff; however,

even if jurisdiction were possible based on the citizenship of

the parties, Plaintiff appears to be involved in a civil

controversy over property that involves much less than the

jurisdictional minimum of monetary amount for this Court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires for jurisdiction not only

diversity of citizenship, but also an amount in controversy

greater than $75,000.00.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a basis for

jurisdiction in this Court.

VII. Amendment of the Complaint

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim against the defendants and has failed to plead

facts demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is

possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 7 of 10
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

8

with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that

would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of

this complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in

dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

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. 

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997);

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not

alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at

567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814

(9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

VIII. Clerk to Update the Docket

The Court notes that although Plaintiff’s complaint

reflected that Plaintiff was housed at Wasco State Prison, his

recently filed application to proceed in forma pauperis reflects

an address at Avenal State Prison.

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), 

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 8 of 10
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

9

it is Plaintiff’s obligation to keep the parties and the Court

apprised of his current address; further, if mail directed to

Plaintiff is returned, then if Plaintiff thereafter fails to

notify the Court and opposing parties of a current address, the

Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. 

Normally, the Court will not change an address for the

Plaintiff; Plaintiff must submit information to the Court

concerning his change of address. However, in this instance, the

Court will direct that Plaintiff’s address be updated. 

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) The order to show cause that issued on January 4, 2008,

IS DISCHARGED; and

2) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED; and

3) The Director of the California Department of Corrections

or his designee SHALL COLLECT payments from Plaintiff’s prison

trust account in an amount equal to twenty per cent (20%) of the

preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account

and SHALL FORWARD those payments to the Clerk of the Court each

time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), until a total of $350.00 has been

collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments

SHALL BE clearly identified by the name and number assigned to

this action; and

4) The Clerk of the Court IS DIRECTED to serve a copy of

this order and a copy of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

application on the Director of the California Department of

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Corrections, via the Court's electronic case filing system

(CM/ECF); and

5) The Clerk of the Court IS DIRECTED to serve a copy of

this order on the Financial Department, U.S. District Court,

Eastern District of California, Fresno Division; and

6) Plaintiff’s complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to file a

first amended complaint; and

7) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service

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

requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must

be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; Plaintiff IS INFORMED that

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order

of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in

dismissal of this action; and

8) The Clerk IS DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff with this

order a blank civil rights complaint form for a person in

custody; and

9) The Clerk IS DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect

Plaintiff’s new address as stated on his recently filed

application to proceed in forma pauperis, namely, CDC No. F83542, Avenal State Prison, Post Office Box 9, Avenal, California

93204.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01551-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/19/08 Page 10 of 10