Mitchell v. Security Pacific Bank et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 1 , THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/9/2017. (Lafata, M)

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

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00775-AWI-MJS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
(ECF NO. 1)
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK, et al.,
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

14

Defendants.

15
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

I.

Screening Requirement

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5

II.

Pleading Standard

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

III.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

16

Plaintiff’s allegations are indecipherable. He appears to allege that he at one time

17

had a loan and an investment portfolio from financial institutions in Texas that provided

18

weekly deposits to his account. His social security benefits were committed to “IHSS”

19

and “DSS.” Plaintiff later opened accounts with Defendants Security Pacific Bank, First

20

Interstate Bank, Bank of America, and Federal Credit Union. The accounts all had assets

21

over $10,000 and “hidden” assets over $1,000,000. These institutions also were

22

brokerage firms. The firms offered legal document services but did not provide them.

23

Plaintiff appears to allege that he has an account or accounts that were charged

24

overdraft fees, fines, transaction fees, and interest, leading to the account or accounts

25

being closed.

26
27
28
2

1

He asks that hearings be held based on “SBE” records concerning the arrests of

2

bankers and mental health holds. He asks for discovery and for JP Morgan Stanley to be

3

required to submit documentation.

4

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

5

Nonetheless, the documents appear to reflect that Plaintiff underwent a series of

6

financial and mental health difficulties that led to him becoming homeless.

7

IV.

Analysis

8

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed on several grounds.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

expected to defend itself effectively on Plaintiff’s allegations.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
3

1

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

2

exists as the United States is not a party in this action and no federal question is

3

presented. Similarly, the complaint does not allege that the parties are citizens of

4

different states or that the matter in controversy is more than $75,000.00.

5

V.

Conclusion and Order

6

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

7

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

8

basis for federal jurisdiciton. The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an

9

amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff

10

chooses to amend, he must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is

11

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)).

12

Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on curing the

13

deficiencies set forth above.

14

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

15

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule,

16

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d

17

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no

18

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

19

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be

20

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First

21

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed

22

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a

24

right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations

25

omitted).

26
27
28
4

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice;

3

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a

4

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

5

order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

6

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal,

7

the Court will recommend the action be dismissed for failure to comply with a

8

court order and failure to state a claim.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 9, 2017

/s/

12

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5