Phelps Crowder v. Office of Personnel Management
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-04412
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Phelps Crowder v. Office of Personel Management, Judge Hixson found the amended complaint deficient, ordered another amendment, and allowed the case to continue temporarily.
Briggett C. Phelps Crowder must file a second amended complaint by November 9, 2023, or face a recommendation for dismissal. The named defendants remain subject to the case unless the court later rules otherwise.
What happened
In Briggett C. Phelps Crowder v. Office of Personel Management, the court reviewed Phelps Crowder’s amended complaint after previously finding her original complaint deficient. The court said the amended complaint did not clearly identify the legal claims, defendants, or facts connecting each defendant to the alleged wrongdoing.
The court also repeated that claims challenging state-court judgments could be barred because federal district courts generally cannot act as appeals courts over state-court decisions. It warned that claims against state judges for their judicial acts would likely be barred by judicial immunity.
Judge Hixson found that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under the federal screening statute, but ordered Phelps Crowder to file a second amended complaint by November 9, 2023. The court said the case could be recommended for dismissal if she did not correct the deficiencies.
The detailed version
- Phelps Crowder v. Office of Personnel Management · No. 3:23-cv-04412
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
The court had previously allowed Briggett C. Phelps Crowder to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened her original complaint, finding it deficient. She then filed a first amended complaint.
The allegations appeared to concern benefits that Phelps Crowder believed she was entitled to receive under her husband’s or former husband’s federal employee retirement plan. The opinion says she appeared to allege that a Solano County Superior Court judge had prevented her from obtaining those benefits. She named several defendants, including the Office of Personel Management, the Department of Veterans Affairs, a county superior court, a state judge, Oliver Roberts, and Brian K. Taylor. The opinion states that she alleged she was owed an annuity and medical benefits.
Screening standard
Because Phelps Crowder was proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to read her complaint liberally, but it could not add facts to her allegations. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without the filing fee if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or shows a complete defense on its face. The complaint also had to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the first amended complaint still did not comply with Rule 8. It consisted of 14 handwritten pages without structure, did not state any causes of action, and did not clearly identify whom Phelps Crowder intended to sue. The court also found that broad allegations that all defendants participated in all alleged violations were not specific enough to give each defendant fair notice of the claims against that defendant.
The court directed Phelps Crowder to identify each defendant in a separate paragraph. For each legal claim, she was required to identify the specific law or right allegedly violated, explain the facts connecting each defendant to the alleged wrongdoing, and describe how she was harmed.
The court also warned that, if Phelps Crowder continued to name state-court judges, claims challenging their judicial acts would likely be barred by judicial immunity. The court further noted that claims seeking to challenge a state-court judgment could be barred by the rule that prevents federal district courts from hearing appeals or effectively acting as appeals courts from state-court judgments.
Disposition
The court found that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), but granted another opportunity to amend because Phelps Crowder was representing herself and the court could not determine that the deficiencies could not be cured. The court ordered her to file a second amended complaint by November 9, 2023. It stated that failure to correct the deficiencies would result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.
Result
The order did not finally dismiss the case. It required a second amended complaint and specified the information and format that the new pleading had to contain.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.