Ferrantino v. Yolo County Transportation District et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/30/2015 DISMISSING the 1 Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within tweny-eight days, curing the defects noted in this order and compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice; WARNING the plaintiff that a failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY FERRANTINO,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-2590 JAM DAD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

YOLO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Anthony Ferrantino is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred

19

to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff

20

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

21

Plaintiff‟s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis

23

status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “„A district court may deny leave to

24

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

25

the action is frivolous or without merit.‟” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th

26

Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See

27

also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to

28

examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the
1

1

proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is

2

bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).

3

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of

4

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

5

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

6

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an

7

arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.

8

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a

9

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the

10
11

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to

12

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

13

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as

14

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most

15

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.

16

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245

17

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

18

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true

19

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western

20

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

21
22
23
24
25
26

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court‟s
jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).
Here, plaintiff‟s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

27

which the court‟s jurisdiction depends. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the

28

adjudication of any case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State
2

1

Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited

2

jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v.

3

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37

4

(1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, „unless the contrary appears

5

affirmatively from the record.‟” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting

6

Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986)).

7

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the

8

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.

9

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has

10

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the

11

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v.

12

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court

13

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

14

The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party asserting

15

jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974)

16

(acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial,

17

implausible, . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy

18

within the jurisdiction of the District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)

19

(recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly

20

insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify dismissal for lack of

21

jurisdiction ); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that even

22

“[a] paid complaint that is „obviously frivolous‟ does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction

23

. . . and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”).

24

Plaintiff‟s complaint also fails to contain a demand for judgment for the relief plaintiff

25

seeks. In this regard, the complaint merely asserts that plaintiff seeks “monetary damages and

26

injunctive relief,” without any further elaboration or explanation as to the amount of monetary

27

damages or what type of injunctive relief plaintiff seeks.

28

/////
3

1

Perhaps most importantly, plaintiff‟s complaint also fails to contain a short and plain

2

statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, the complaint

3

consists merely of one paragraph in which plaintiff alleges that the “defendants” assaulted and

4

discriminated against him, that the assault occurred on May 31, 2014, that the discrimination

5

occurred on December 24, 2013, and that plaintiff “wishes the court to hear [his] case in light of

6

federal statutes prohibiting discrimination and section 504 of the Social Security Act prohibiting

7

public agencies . . . from discriminating against Social Security recipients who are aged and

8

disabled.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 1.)

9

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a

10

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff‟s claims and must allege facts that

11

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.

12

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers „labels

13

and conclusions‟ or „a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.‟ Nor

14

does a complaint suffice if it tenders „naked assertions‟ devoid of „further factual

15

enhancements.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,

16

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

17

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff‟s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

18

Here, it is entirely unclear from a reading of plaintiff‟s complaint who the defendant(s)

19

are, what the defendant(s) allegedly did wrong and what causes of action plaintiff is attempting to

20

allege against those defendants. Plaintiff‟s complaint refers “federal statutes prohibiting

21

discrimination.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 1.) However, it is entirely unclear as to what statutes

22

plaintiff is referring to. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)

23

makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his

24

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual‟s race,

25

color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Title II of the Americans with

26

Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as follows: “[N]o qualified

27

individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or

28

be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
4

1

discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Age Discrimination in Employment

2

Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire

3

or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his

4

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual‟s age.”

5

29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).1
Accordingly, due to all of these noted deficiencies, plaintiff‟s complaint will be dismissed

6
7

for failure to state a claim. The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may

8

amend the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for

9

denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California

10

Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also

11

Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass‟n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983)

12

(holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile

13

amendments). However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se

14

plaintiff may be dismissed “only where „it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no

15

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.‟” Franklin v. Murphy, 745

16

F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). See also

17

Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint

18

without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the

19

complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202,

20

1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

21

Here, the court cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be

22

futile. Plaintiff‟s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and he will be granted leave to file an

23

amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he elects to file an amended

24

complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint

25

is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

26

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While

27
28

1

Plaintiff is cautioned that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all federal statutes that
prohibit any form of discrimination.
5

1

legal conclusions can provide the complaint‟s framework, they must be supported by factual

2

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from

3

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

4

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an

5

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete

6

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original

7

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint,

8

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption

9

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each

10

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file

11

must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events

12

which underlie plaintiff‟s claims.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14
15

1. The complaint filed November 5, 2014 (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with leave to
amend.2

16

2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint

17

shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.3 The amended complaint must bear the case

19

number assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”

20

3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a

21

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

22

Dated: April 30, 2015

23
24

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\ferrantino2590.dism.lta.ord.docx

25
2

26
27
28

Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless
plaintiff‟s financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted.
3

Alternatively, plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule
41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6