Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02168/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02168-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jan A. Plum
Defendant
James Trotter
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 

JAMES TROTTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAN A. PLUM, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2168-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed applications to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and two “motions to compel,” which appear to be 

requesting access to an iPad.

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 6
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

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “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.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have 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, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

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

III. Screening Order 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 6
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

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Aside from 

several “doe” defendants, plaintiff names Judge Jan A. Plum as the sole defendant in this action 

and makes the vague and conclusory allegation that he is entitled to monetary damages because 

“false evidence was introduced in court [that] was material to guilty pleading.” 

The court has reviewed the complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds that the allegations 

are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. In addition, the sole 

defendant, Judge Jan A. Plum, is immune from suit. Moreover, venue appears to be improper, as 

Judge Plum is a judicial officer in Los Angeles County, which is in the United States District 

Court for the Central District of California. For these reasons, the complaint must be dismissed 

with leave to amend if plaintiff can allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant 

and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory.1 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to 

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended 

complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each 

defendant. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009). 

 1

 Plaintiff has filed “motions to compel” in which he complains that the law library is 

inadequate. ECF Nos. 4, 15. Though not entirely clear, he appears to be requesting access to an 

iPad. Plaintiff’s motions are denied, as compliance with this order dismissing the complaint with 

leave to amend does not require extensive legal research, nor does it require access to an iPad. 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in their 

judicial capacities. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“A 

judge loses absolute immunity only when [the judge] acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction 

or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.”). 

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of 

confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Where success in a section 1983 action would 

implicitly question the validity of confinement or its duration, the plaintiff must first show that 

the underlying conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 

jurisdiction, must be brought in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which 

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an 

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b). Here, the allegations appear to relate to events that transpired in Los Angeles County, 

which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, it appears that venue in this court is 

improper, and that this civil action should have been brought in the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California. 

In addition, the use of Doe defendants is problematic, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980), and ultimately unnecessary. Should plaintiff learn the identities of the 

“doe” parties he wishes to serve, he must promptly move pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure to file an amended complaint to add them as defendants. See Brass v. County 

of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2003). If the timing of his amended complaint 

raises questions as to the statute of limitations, plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Rule 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 6
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

15(c), which is the controlling procedure for adding defendants whose identities were discovered 

after commencement of the action. Additionally, unknown persons cannot be served with process 

until they are identified by their real names and the court will not investigate the names and 

identities of unnamed defendants. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 11, 14, 17) is granted. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 6
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

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s “motions to compel” (ECF Nos. 4, 15) are denied. 

4. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Third Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action. If plaintiff 

files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of 

process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: September 10, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02168-MCE-EFB Document 19 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 6