The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 7)
Plaintiff Kulvinder S. Boparai ("Plaintiff") initiated this action for civil rights violations against Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Donna Beiter, Director the Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System- Veteran's Affairs; Dean Norman, Chief of Staff; Thomas Yoshikawa, Acting Director of Primary Care; Jo Ann Van Horn, Site Manager of Bakersfield Veterans Affairs Ambulatory Care Clinic; and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Doc. 7).
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A complaint must include a statement affirming the court's jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ("Rule 8"). The 2
Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to "less stringent 3 standards" than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972). 4
II. Plaintiff's Allegations 5
According to Plaintiff, he was placed under surveillance, false allegations were made by 6 management and staff, and he "was given unfair, undeserved and lower performance annual 7 evaluations." (Doc. 12 at 2). In addition, Plaintiff asserts he was "bypassed for additional 8 responsibilities" and "denied advancement." Id. Further, Plaintiff contends there was "disparate 9 treatment for Bakersfield physicians," because they did not have a specific lead physician and had a higher average of patients compared to the national average. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges the procedures in place violated directives issued by the Office of Veterans' Affairs. Id. at 4.
III. Discussion and Analysis
The purpose of a complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court explained, Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague allegations do not support a claim. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Here, Plaintiff recounts the history of his Equal Employment Opportunity complaints, including false allegations and his failure to be selected for a lead physician position. Although Plaintiff provides several factual allegations, he fails to identify the causes of action which he wishes to pursue against Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, because Plaintiff fails to identify the specific causes of action for which he seeks relief. See Sherrell v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147427, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011) (explaining that "when suing multiple defendants . . . '[s]pecific identification of the parties to the activities alleged by plaintiff is required in this action to enable the defendant to plead 2 intelligently.'") 3
The Court has a duty to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action fails to state a claim, "notwithstanding any filing fee that may have been paid." 28 U.S.C. § 1915e(2). Accordingly, a court 6 "may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a 7 claim." See Wong ...