Grijalva v. Santa Clara County

Background

The action had previously been dismissed because Joseph John Grijalva did not comply with orders requiring him to file a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. After those documents were filed, the court reopened the action and vacated the earlier dismissal order and judgment.

Legal standard

The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the complaint contained no claim. It asked to speak with someone from the court because there was too much to list, but it did not provide specific facts showing that any person acting under state law violated Grijalva’s federal constitutional rights.

Ruling and required next steps

The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint by March 2, 2020. The court required the amended complaint to use the specified caption and case number, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, appear on the court’s form, include all claims and defendants Grijalva wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that no extensions would be granted and warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice.