1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADIHA MINER, No. 2:19-cv-1534-MCE-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KU KLUX KLAN; SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISOR

15 JOHN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her 19 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 5. 20 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 22 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 23 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 24 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 25 below, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 26 ///// 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 2 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 3 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 5 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 6 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 7 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 8 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 9 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 10 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 11 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 12 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 13 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 14 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 15 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 16 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 17 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 18 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 19 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 20 Plaintiff complaint includes a variety of extravagant allegations as to the CIA, the Ku 21 Klux Klan, and the Social Security Administration harassing her. She alleges that defendant Ku 22 Klux Klan has harassed her and her family for the past sixteen years. ECF No. 1 at 7. More 23 specifically, she claims that the Ku Klux Klan is unlawfully surveilling her and her family and 24 tampering with their vehicles, requiring her family to rely on public transportation. Id. at 9-10. 25 She further claims that the CIA is jeopardizing her life by providing unspecified documents. Id. 26 at 10. The complaint also names as a defendant a Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 27 Supervisor, identified only as John, and alleges that the SSA has denied plaintiff “coverage.” Id. 28 at 1-2, 8. It is unclear from these allegations what specific claim plaintiff is seeking to allege. 1 The complaint does reference the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But it does not identify the specific 2 provision defendants allegedly violated, nor does it allege any facts demonstrating that plaintiff 3 was subjected to discrimination on account of race, color, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. 4 §§ 2000d and 2000e-2. 5 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.2 Plaintiff 6 will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, but any amended complaint must allege a 7 cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 8 cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 9 (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 10 their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 11 shall clearly set forth the allegations against each defendant and shall specify a basis for this 12 court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in 13 “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as 14 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper 15 that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local 16 Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each 17 claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 18 10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header. 19 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 20 make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 21 complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 22 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 23

24 2 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel the Ku Klux Klan to produce unspecified documents related to her husband. ECF No. 4. Because defendants have not yet been served, the 25 discovery motion is premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Plaintiff has also filed a document 26 styled as “Motion: Habeas Corpus,” which requests that her mother be released from the Sacramento County jail. ECF No. 3. That document will be disregarded since plaintiff is not 27 authorized to request relief on behalf of her mother in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be signed and verified by person for whose relief it is 28 intended). 1 | plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 2 | Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 3 || alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 4 | 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 5 || Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 6 || comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 7 || may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 8 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 10 2. Plaintiffs motion styled as “Motion: Habeas Corpus” (ECF No. 3) is disregarded. 11 3. Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 4) is denied. 12 4. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein. 13 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 14 | complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must 15 || be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in 16 || accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 17 | DATED: February 13, 2020. 18 tid, PDEA 19 EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28