Wheeler v. The US Department of Education et al, No. 1:2009cv01631 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1 Complaint With Leave to File an Amended Complaint No Later Than Thirty Days After the Date of Service of This Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/29/2009. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wheeler v. The US Department of Education et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JOHN FREDERICK WHEELER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 The US Department of Education, et al., Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-01631-LJO-SMS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 2) ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER (DOC. 1) 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages 18 and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The 19 matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 21 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing 23 required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in 24 forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 25 II. Screening the Complaint 26 A. Legal Standards 27 In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case and shall 2 dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the 3 allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is 4 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 5 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 6 is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 7 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all 8 civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to 9 section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 10 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a 11 complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 12 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” 13 Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant 14 fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon 15 which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual 16 allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 17 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 18 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 19 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 20 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth 21 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 22 that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 23 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are 24 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949. 25 Fed. R. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 26 relief is generally a context-specific task that requires the 27 reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 28 sense. However, where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the 2 1 court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the 2 complaint has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief." 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). A claim has 4 facial plausibility,"when the plaintiff pleads factual content 5 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 6 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. 7 Iqbal, – U.S. –, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “[F]or a complaint 8 to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual 9 content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be 10 plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to 11 relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 12 2009). 13 If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 14 claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the 15 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 16 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Dismissal 17 of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only 18 where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the 19 facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would 20 be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128. 21 B. Plaintiff’s Complaint 22 Plaintiff complains of letters or communications that 23 Defendants Diversified Collection Services (DCS) and Van Ru 24 Credit Corporation sent him concerning debts owed to unidentified 25 creditors; however, Plaintiff later states that if he does not 26 receive an apology and satisfaction from “THIS NOTICE” (an 27 apparent reference to the complaint itself), he would file suit 28 and ask for damages. (Cmplt. pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff later makes 3 1 conclusional statements to the effect that the aforementioned 2 Defendants, as well as the United States Department of Education, 3 deprived Plaintiff of unspecified rights in violation of 42 4 U.S.C. § 1983. He states that the Department of Education 5 threatened to collect a debt by attaching his Social Security 6 benefits, and that he received documents from Defendant Van Ru 7 concerning a loan application and that his civil rights have 8 thereby been violated. 9 Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsistent, and it is unclear 10 whether he intends his complaint as an operative legal document 11 or whether his intention is to decide to sue or not upon learning 12 the reaction of Defendants to his complaint. Further, there is a 13 lack of clarity as to the delineation between events meant to be 14 recited to Defendants and events which Plaintiff intends to form 15 the basis of his complaint. Plaintiff will be given an 16 opportunity to file an amended complaint in which to state 17 specific facts constituting the conduct, and significant 18 attendant circumstances, for which Plaintiff intends to seek 19 relief. 20 21 C. Leave to Amend In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the 22 complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a 23 cognizable claim against the defendants and has failed to plead 24 facts demonstrating jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is 25 possible that Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent 26 with the allegations, in support of the claim or claims that 27 would entitle him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff 28 an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of 4 1 this complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in 2 dismissal of this action without leave to amend. 3 Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior 4 pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. 5 Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete 6 in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is 7 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 8 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 9 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 10 pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in 11 an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and 12 the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 13 Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 14 original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint 15 are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & 16 Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 17 F.3d at 1474. 18 III. Disposition 19 Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that: 20 1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS 21 GRANTED; and 22 23 2) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED with leave to amend; and 24 3) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service 25 of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the 26 requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules 27 of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended 28 complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must 5 1 be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; 2 complaint in accordance with this order will be considered to be 3 a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local 4 Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of this action. failure to file an amended 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: icido3 October 29, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
