(PC) Spohn v. Trinity County District Attorney's Office, et al, No. 2:2012cv00565 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/18/12 denying 22 Motion for Extension of time. Also, RECOMMENDING that the second amended complaint filed 09/13/12 23 be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons discussed above. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Spohn v. Trinity County District Attorney's Office, et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL N. SPOHN, Plaintiff, 11 No. 2:12-cv-0565 KJM CKD P vs. 12 13 14 TRINITY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al., ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who 17 18 seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended 19 complaint (SAC) filed September 13, 2012. (Dkt. No. 23.) The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 23 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 \\\\\ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 3 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 6 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 7 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 8 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a 9 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 10 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “The pleading must 11 contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 12 cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 13 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 14 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ 15 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “A 16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 17 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 18 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 19 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 20 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 21 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 sets forth general rules of notice pleading in the federal courts. 23 See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002). Complaints are required to set a forth (1) the 24 grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim 25 showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires only 26 “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever 2 1 v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Even if the factual elements of the cause of action 2 are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and 3 plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry v. 4 Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Like the FAC before it, the SAC fails to cure the defects of the original complaint. 5 6 It does not contain a “short and plain” statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief 7 pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2). It names several defendants who are immune from suit, as discussed in 8 the court’s original screening order. It also contains numerous unrelated allegations against 9 dozens of named defendants, making it unduly burdensome to determine which of any claims are 10 colorable. In its August 10, 2012 order dismissing the FAC, the court cautioned that plaintiff 11 would be “granted one last opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 12 and the screening standard set forth above.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 3.) This is not that complaint. 13 Indeed, plaintiff’s rambling and colorful prose style, while engaging, is fundamentally at odds 14 with the procedural requirements of a federal civil rights complaint. Thus the court concludes 15 that further opportunity to amend would be futile. The court will also deny plaintiff’s September 13, 2012 motion for an extension of 16 17 time to file a supplement to the SAC, which he asserts is “substantially longer . . . with hundreds 18 of additionally numbered pages” (Dkt. No. 22 at 3), as there is no indication that such a filing 19 would cure the deficiencies of the SAC. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s September 13, 2012 20 21 motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 22) is denied. 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT the Second Amended Complained 23 filed September 13, 2012 (Dkt. No. 23) be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons discussed 24 above. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty3 1 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 4 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 5 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 6 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 Dated: September 18, 2012 8 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 2 spoh0565.SAC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.