Blank v. United States of America

Filing 3

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/12/17 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 12/22/16 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) be DENIED; Plaintiff's 12/22/16 complaint (ECF No. 1 ) be DISMISSED without prejudice; and this action be DISMISSED. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL BLANK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2991 JAM DB PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, Paul Blank, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

17
18

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

19

before the court is plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about slavery.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma

21
22

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.

23

2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated

24

below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

25

be denied and plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

26

I.

27
28

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma
1

1

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny

2

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed

3

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d

4

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th

5

Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th

6

Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed

7

IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous

8

or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the

9

District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

20

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
2

1

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

2

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

3

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.

4
5
6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

7

II.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

8

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

9

which the court’s jurisdiction depends and fails to state a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to

10

relief. The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer

11

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be

12

conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal

13

jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to

14

those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d

15

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Here, plaintiff’s complaint simply alleges that “[c]itizens of the United States that are of

26

Negro race were not treated fairly and denied humane rights from 1776 to end of slavery.”

27

(Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) Moreover, the “Civil War of 1861 . . . would have been avoided if the

28

government would have in 1776 abolished slavery in the first place . . . .” (Id. at 1-2.) In this
3

1

regard, the complaint fails to identify a basis for jurisdiction or a cause of action upon which

2

relief can be granted.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for

3
4

lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cognizable claim.

5

III.

6

Leave to Amend
The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to

7

state a claim over which the court would have jurisdiction and upon which relief could be

8

granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice,

9

and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472

10

(9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d

11

1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court

12

does not have to allow futile amendments). In light of the deficiencies noted above, the

13

undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this case.

14

CONCLUSION

15

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

16

1. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2016 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be

17

denied;
2. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2016 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice;

18
19

and

20

3. This action be dismissed.

21

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

23

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

24

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

25

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

26

////

27

////

28

////
4

1

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under

2

certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst,

3

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: April 12, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/blank2991.ifp.den.f&rs

24
25
26
27
28
5