court must 21 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- court must 21 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
- court 20 must accept the allegations as true
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JASON MALLORY, No. 2:24-cv-3663 DJC AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
RANDHIR GANDHI, ROGER
15 LEVENSON and ALDRIDGE PITE,
16 Defendants.
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 has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
20 pauperis (“IFP”) and submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
21 The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
22 I. SCREENING
23 A. Legal Standard
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 the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the
28 complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The
1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-
2 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’s initial complaint identified the County of Sacramento as the defendant and
11 indicated that a second defendant was “Pending Amendment.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff filed the
12 operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on January 8, 2025. ECF No. 3. The FAC lists the
13 County of Sacramento as a defendant, along with new defendants Randhir Gandhi (CEO of Select
14 Portfolio Services), Roger Levenson (CEO of Wilmington Savings Fund Society/Starwood
15 Mortgage Residential Trust), and Aldridge Pite. Id. at 2-3. The FAC lists the presence of a
16 federal question as the basis for jurisdiction, and says “see original complaint” where asked to
17 identify the specific federal statutes or constitutional provisions involved. Id. at 4. The FAC’s
18 “Statement of Claim” section is blank, and the relief sought is identified as “TRO to stop/prevent
19 Default/foreclosure.” Id. at 5-6.
20 C. Discussion
21 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint cannot be served at this time because it does not
22 contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s
23 entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even though those things are required by Fed. R.
24 Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (3). The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff is unclear from the first
25 amended complaint, which does not contain any facts at all, or list any legal causes of action. The
26 court cannot tell what legal wrong was done to plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged
27 harm is connected to the relief plaintiff seeks. The court cannot look to other documents,
28 including the original complaint or other motions filed by the plaintiff, to fill in the blanks of the
1 operative first amended complaint. Because the first amended complaint does not state any facts
2 or causes of action, it cannot be served. However, rather than recommending dismissal, the court
3 will allow plaintiff to file a second amended complaint correcting the problems outlined above.
4 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
5 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the second amended complaint must allege
6 facts establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and
7 plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in
8 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one
9 before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated
10 anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances”
11 where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their
12 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor
13 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
14 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid
15 narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what
16 happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor
17 give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should
18 contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.
19 The second amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at
20 what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)
21 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what
22 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended
23 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’
24 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not
25 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for
26 what.” Id. at 1179.
27 Also, the second amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading or a separate
28 motion to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Any amended complaint must be
1 || complete without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general
2 || rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v.
3 || Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[nJormally, an amended
4 | complaint supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
5 || Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
6 || original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
7 | alleged.
8 II]. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY
9 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your
10 || first amended complaint what legal harm was done to you, because you do not allege any facts or
11 || identify any causes of action. You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that
12 || provides facts and legal causes of action. Your second amended complaint needs to explain in
13 || simple terms what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those
14 | violations impacted you. The court cannot look to your old complaints or motions — all of the
15 || necessary information must be in the second amended complaint. If you do not submit a second
16 || amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed.
17 IV. CONCLUSION
18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
20 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint
21 which complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with
22 this order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.
23 || DATED: January 14, 2025 ~
Ctt10 Lhar—e_
24 ALLISONCLAIRE. SS
25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28