Mitchell v. Security Pacific Bank et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED Without Leave to Amend, and that the Action be Closed re 10 First Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/14/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HURSEL FLOYD MITCHELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00775-AWI-MJS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF NO. 10)
THIRTY
(30)
DEADLINE

DAY

OBJECTION

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Hursel Floyd Mitchell proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

complaint against Security Pacific Bank, Federal Credit Union, First Interstate Bank,

21

Bank of America, Citibank, Valley Oak Bank, and JP Morgan Chase.

22

His complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to

23

amend. (ECF No. 7.) His first amended complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF

24

No. 10.)

25

I.

Screening Requirement

26

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the

27

complaint to determine if it states a cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a

28

1

complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are

2

legally "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,"

3

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have

5

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .

6

the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

8

II.

Pleading Standard

9

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

10

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations

11

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

12

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

13

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

14

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

15

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere

16

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are

17

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

18

III.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

19

Plaintiff’s allegations are, once again, indecipherable. His complaint is comprised

20

of a single page of randomly assembled legal phrases. It is devoid of factual allegations.

21

He attaches various documents to his complaint, the import of which are not clear. At

22

best, the documents may be read to reflect that Plaintiff has minimal income and is

23

suffering financial difficulties, presumably at the hands of Deefendants.

24

IV.

Analysis

25

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed on several grounds.

26

First, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim if it does not

27

“contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the

28
2

1

opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir.

2

2011). Because Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible, no defendant could be

3

expected to defend itself effectively on Plaintiff’s allegations.

4

Second, the complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 8. The complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

6

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the allegations

7

are not “simple, concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Although we construe

8

pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”

9

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case, the complaint, even when

10

construed liberally, fails to meet the most minimal standards required by Rule 8.

11

Lastly, in order to state a claim in a United States District Court, Plaintiff must

12

establish federal jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the

13

United States Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. These generally

14

are limited to cases involving diversity of citizenship (in which the matter in controversy

15

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states), or a

16

federal question, or to which the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332;

17

See also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United

18

States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction

19

exists as the United States is not a party in this action and no question – let alone a

20

federal question – can be discerned. Similarly, the complaint does not allege that the

21

parties are citizens of different states or that the matter in controversy is more than

22

$75,000.00.

23

V.

Conclusion and Recommendation

24

Plaintiff’s complaint is unintelligible and must be dismissed for failure to state a

25

claim, failure to meet the most basic requirements of Rule 8, and failure to establish a

26

basis for federal jurisdiciton. Plaintiff previously was advised of these pleading defects

27
28
3

1

and given the opportunity to cure them. (ECF No. 7.) He failed to do so. Further leave to

2

amend appears futile and should be denied.

3
4

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, and that the action be closed.

5

The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District

6

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

7

thirty (30) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may

8

file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

9

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to

10

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

11

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

12

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2017

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4