The opinion of the court was delivered by: Suzanne H. Segal United States Magistrate Judge
DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
On June 15, 2011, plaintiff Keith Page ("Plaintiff") filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the "Complaint") against various defendants. On August 16, 2011, the Court dismissed the *fn1 Complaint with leave to amend due to various pleading deficiencies. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"). Because the First Amended Complaint also suffers from pleading deficiencies, it must also be dismissed with leave to amend.*fn2
Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil complaints filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portions thereof, before service of process if the Court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that the following five defendants violated his civil rights: (1) California Highway Patrol ("C.H.P.") Officer Robbert [sic] Corral ("Officer Corral"); (2) C.H.P. Sergeant M. Steffanoff ("Sergeant Steffanoff"); (3) C.H.P. Captain W. G. Siegl ("Captain Siegl"); (4) C.H.P. Assistant Chief Calvin Aubrey ("Assistant Chief Aubrey"); and (5) C.H.P. Chief Warren A. Stanley ("Chief Stanley") (collectively, "Defendants"). (See First Amended Complaint at 3-4). Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual capacities. (See id.). Plaintiff also sues Captain Siegl, Assistant Chief Aubrey and Chief Stanley in their official capacities. (See id.).
Plaintiff's allegations are difficult to decipher. It appears, however, that Plaintiff is attempting to allege five interrelated claims arising from his arrest for driving under the influence by Officer Corral on March 20, 2007 and his subsequent re-arrest and incarceration. (Id. at 5, 10). First, Plaintiff alleges that his "[F]ourth [A]mendment right was violated due to unlawful seizure, because [he] was arrested without reasonable or probable cause." (Id.). Second, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of "procedural protection," and "of [his] choice of the implied consent chemical test" in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and his right to due process. (Id.). Third, Plaintiff alleges that "[his] [E]ighth [A]mendment rights were violated when [he] was unlawfully imprisoned for 14 months due to fabricated charges, subjecting [him] to cruel and unusual punishment." (Id.). Fourth, Plaintiff vaguely claims that his "right to equal protection" was violated "due to conspiracy." (Id.). Fifth, in an equally vague claim, Plaintiff alleges that he was "deprived of [his] right to liberty interest [sic], or a liberty interest." (Id.). Among other specific allegations of misconduct, Plaintiff appears to accuse various Defendants in a long and largely incomprehensible factual narrative of making false allegations (id. at 6-8, 11), prohibiting Plaintiff from collecting evidence for his defense (id. at 7-8, 14), failing to investigate Officer Corral's conduct (id. at 9, 13), and failing to train and supervise their employees. (Id. at 9-10).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $18,737,666.66, punitive damages in "whatever amount court deems appropriate," court costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. at 16).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint due to defects in pleading. Pro se litigants in civil rights cases, however, must be given leave to amend their complaints unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at ...