# (PS) Tanksley v. Sacramento County Police Dept.

> District Court, E.D. California · December 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032174

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032174

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, No. 2:21-cv-02225 KJM AC (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE
DEPT., J. HON.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
20 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
22 I. SCREENING
23 A. Standards
24 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
27 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting
28 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”).
1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-
2 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
3 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and
4 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this
5 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled
6 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief
7 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly.
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in
9 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),
10 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
13 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
14 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
15 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
16 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
17 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
18 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
19 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
20 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
21 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
22 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
23 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
24 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
25 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
26 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
27 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
28 ////
1 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
2 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
3 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
5 678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
6 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
7 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in
8 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
9 B. The Complaint
10 Plaintiff sues the Sacramento County Police Department, Mr. J. Honor (Chief), Officers
11 John Doe, and Officers Jane Doe. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff checks the box on his form
12 complaint indicating that this case is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. The contents of
13 plaintiff’s complaint appear to allege police violation of state laws due to corruption. Id. at 3.
14 Plaintiff checks a box that reads “threat to safety.” Id. However, the court cannot decipher any
15 specific allegations because the handwriting throughout the complaint is extremely difficult to
16 read and is illegible in many places, particularly in the supporting fact section and the request for
17 relief section. Id. at 3, 6.
18 C. Discussion
19 The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for
20 federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those
21 things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff
22 is unclear from the complaint because the court is unable to read most of what is written due to
23 illegible handwriting. The court cannot tell from examining the complaint what legal wrong was
24 done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged harm is connected to the relief plaintiff
25 seeks.
26 Accordingly, the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Rather than
27 recommending dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide plaintiff an opportunity to
28 amend his complaint and submit it in a format that the court can read.
1 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
2 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts
3 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain
4 statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially
5 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each
6 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the
7 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where
8 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their
9 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor
10 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
11 Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint in a readable format, either type-written or
12 clearly hand-printed. Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff
13 must avoid narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of
14 what happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim),
15 nor give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint
16 should contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.
17 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is
18 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)
19 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what
20 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended
21 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’
22 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not
23 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for
24 what.” Id. at 1179.
25 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s
26 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without
27 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended
28 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline
1 || Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[nJormally, an amended complaint
2 || supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
3 || Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
4 | original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
5 || alleged.
6 II]. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY
7 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your
8 | complaint what legal harm was done to you, because it cannot read your handwriting. Because
9 || the complaint is not readable and does not make understandable claims against identifiable
10 || defendants, it will not be served. Your lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with
11 || your complaint.
12 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis
13 || for federal jurisdiction. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms
14 || what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations
15 || impacted you. It needs to be written clearly so that the court and all parties can read it. Without
16 || the necessary information clearly written, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are trying to
17 | bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the
18 | undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed.
19 IV. CONCLUSION
20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
22 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that
23 complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this
24 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.
25 || DATED: December 7, 2021 ~
26 Atttarr—Chore
ALLISON CLAIRE
27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032174. Public record. Not legal advice.