United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested
authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in
forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by
Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Plaintiff
has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a)
showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or
give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed
in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The
federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts
to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(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.
In
order 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, 555-557 (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
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).
The
court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so
vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether
the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for
relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not
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 defendants engaged
in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because
plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The
court will, however, grant leave to file an amended
complaint.
If
plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set
forth the jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct
complained of has resulted in a deprivation of
plaintiff’s federal rights. See Ellis v.
Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).
The
complaint, as presently drafted, appears to challenge some
actions of the Social Security office located in Stockton,
California. It is not clear from the complaint whether
plaintiff is challenging a denial of social security
benefits. In the amended complaint, plaintiff should clarify
whether she is challenging a final decision of the Social
Security administration denying benefits.
It
appears that plaintiff may also be trying to state a claim
under the Civil Rights Act. That Act provides as follows:
“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. The statute requires
that there be an actual connection or link between the
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have
been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of
Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person
‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if
he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d
740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Moreover,
supervisory personnel are generally not liable under §
1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of
respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant
holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him
and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically
alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862
(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438,
441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941
(1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the
involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations
are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents,
673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff
is advised that in any amended complaint, she must set forth
separate causes of action and should not plead in one
complaint incidents that are unrelated. In addition,
plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior
pleading in order to make plaintiffs amended complaint
complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once
plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading
no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an
amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim
and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
alleged.
In
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF ...