Lewis v. Williams et al
Filing
4
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/29/2017 ORDERING the complaint 1 is DISMISSED with leave to amend; within 28 days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the FRCP and the Local Rules of Practice. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DERRICK LEWIS,
12
No. 2:17-cv-0939 GEB DB PS
Plaintiff,
13
v.
ORDER
14
MONICA WILLIAMS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, Derrick Lewis, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to
18
the 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 electronic surveillance.
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, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.
25
I.
26
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28
27
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma
28
pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny
1
1
leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed
2
complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d
3
1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
4
Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th
5
Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed
6
IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous
7
or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the
8
District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine
9
whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit,
10
the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).
11
Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of
12
poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
13
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune
14
defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an
15
arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
16
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a
17
complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the
18
factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
19
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
20
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
21
570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as
22
true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most
23
favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.
24
Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
25
(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
26
lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
27
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
28
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
2
1
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
2
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.
3
4
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
6
II.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing that
7
8
plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, the complaint’s factual allegations consist of a single
9
paragraph alleging that “Monica Williams sold a computer that had [plaintiff’s] imagine and
10
writings on it with a transaction through Chase Bank,” and that the Sacramento Sherriff’s
11
Department’s “electric eye (SPE) had surveillance on [plaintiff] through various parts of the
12
county . . . .” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6. )
13
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a
14
complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that
15
state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v.
16
Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels
17
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor
18
does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual
19
enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,
20
557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the
21
defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.
22
III.
23
Leave to Amend
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The undersigned
24
has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which
25
relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith,
26
prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
27
1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau,
28
701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the
3
1
court does not have to allow futile amendments).
2
However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff
3
may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
4
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
5
1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)); see also Weilburg v.
6
Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to
7
amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be
8
cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir.
9
1988)).
10
Here, the undersigned cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend
11
would be futile. Plaintiff’s complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted
12
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if plaintiff elects to file
13
an amended complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
14
in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
15
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
16
“While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by
17
factual allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line
18
from conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
19
Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an
20
amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete
21
in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original
22
complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint,
23
just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption
24
and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each
25
defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file
26
must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events
27
which underlie plaintiff’s claims.
28
////
4
1
IV.
Conclusion
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. The complaint filed May 4, 2017 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to
4
amend.1
5
2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be
6
filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
7
Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number
8
assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.”
9
3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation
10
that this action be dismissed.
11
Dated: September 29, 2017
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\lewis0939.dism.lta.ord
24
25
26
27
28
1
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.
2
Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?