Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02599/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott R. Jones
Defendant
Pro M. Thius
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRO M. THIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT R. JONES,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-2599-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Pro M. Thius, proceeding in this action without counsel, has requested leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Plaintiff’s application in 

support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. Accordingly, the undersigned grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at 

any time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or 

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

an immune defendant.

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-02599-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, 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 critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 

2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear 

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

Here, plaintiff’s two-page complaint is confusing and appears to assert a claim for false 

imprisonment and an unspecified Fourteenth Amendment claim based on allegations regarding 

plaintiff’s arrest sometime between May 7, 2014, and June 27, 2014, at the Sacramento Public 

Library and subsequent removal to Los Angeles based on a faulty warrant for loitering. (ECF No. 

Case 2:14-cv-02599-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

1 at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that a rented room was searched and two of plaintiff’s laptop 

computers and other personal belongings were seized as a result. (Id.) As far as the court can 

ascertain, plaintiff is apparently allegedly that he was wrongfully arrested and had his personal 

belongings wrongfully seized. However, plaintiff provides little in the way of facts detailing the 

events surrounding his arrest and the seizure of his property, who was involved in these alleged 

incidents, the specific dates on which these incidents occurred, and what resulting damages 

plaintiff suffered. Furthermore, although plaintiff’s complaint alleges a “14th Amendment 

violation,” plaintiff fails to articulate which aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly 

violated. Finally, plaintiff names Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones as the sole defendant in 

his complaint, but does not provide any indication as to Jones’ involvement in the alleged events.

In sum, plaintiff’s complaint, which largely contains vague assertions and conclusory 

statements, does not provide defendant or the court with sufficient notice of what his claims are,

and does not plead sufficient facts which, if accepted as true, would allow the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the court 

dismisses plaintiff’s complaint, but with leave to amend.

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended 

Complaint”; shall be no longer than 20 pages; shall correct the deficiencies outlined in this order;

and shall be filed within 28 days of this order.

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in order 

to make plaintiff’s first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

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

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is 

filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.

Finally, nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. If 

plaintiff determines that he is unable to amend his complaint in compliance with the court’s order 

at this juncture, he may alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 28 days of this order. 

////

Case 2:14-cv-02599-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend.

3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiff shall file either a first amended complaint in 

compliance with this order, or a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

4. Failure to file either a first amended complaint in compliance with this order or a 

notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline may result in a recommendation 

that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02599-MCE-KJN Document 3 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 4