Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-02629 KJM AC (PS)
12-19-2017
DAVID ALDEN and SARAH J. BOWMAN ALDEN, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. The request should be denied because plaintiffs' financial resources listed on the application do not justify IFP status. Id. According to their application, plaintiffs have a combined annual income of roughly $42,981.24. Although this income is not high, plaintiffs also have assets including a home valued at $600,000, four cars, retirement funds, and partial ownership of a commercial building. Id. at 1-2. Considering all the relevant financial circumstances, plaintiffs do not meet the standard of indigence warranting IFP status.
Further, plaintiffs' complaint does not satisfy federal pleading requirements and should be dismissed with leave to amend. Because the decision to deny IFP status belongs with the district judge, the undersigned issues the following findings and recommendations for review by the district judge. Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988).
I. SCREENING
The federal IFP statute requires 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). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a "short and plain statement" of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 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. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
A. The Complaint
The complaint contains 56 pages of narrative regarding the familial and social services history of plaintiffs' family, including their two minor children. ECF No. 1. The plaintiffs' claims appear to revolve around what they assert was the improper removal of one of their children from their home and restrictions placed upon them by the Juvenile Dependency Court. Id. at 24, 26. Plaintiffs bring six causes of action, including "violation of federal civil rights" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "violation of state civil rights." Monell-related claims," intentional infliction of emotion al distress, defamation, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. at 35-54.
B. Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 8(a)(1), (a)(2) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain" statement setting forth the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, why the lawsuit is filed in this federal court rather than a state court), and the basis for plaintiff's claims (that is, who did what to plaintiff and how he was harmed). The complaint in this case, which is currently drafted as a verbose and lengthy narrative, does not set forth plaintiffs' claims for relief in a manner that would clearly put defendants on notice of the exact nature of the allegations against them, and therefore does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed.
C. Amending the Complaint
The amended complaint, in addition to alleging facts establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction, must contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited "to a single set of circumstances" where possible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms .
Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor give a running account of plaintiff's hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.
The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was "literally guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants"). The amended complaint must not require the court to spend its time "preparing the 'short and plain statement' which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit." Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines "to determine who is being sued for what." Id. at 1179.
Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) ("[n]ormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint") (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that:
1. Plaintiffs' request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED, because the plaintiffs do not meet the standard of indigence that would make a grant of IFP appropriate;
2. Plaintiffs' complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
3. Plaintiffs be given 30 days from the date of the district judge's adoption of this recommendation to (1) file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions given above and (2) pay the filing fee. Plaintiffs should be cautioned that failure to timely comply with the court's order may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. //// //// Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: December 19, 2017
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE