Ransom et al v. Mack et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/10/2017 DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP without prejudice. Plaintiff must file his renewed IFP Application and amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLINTON RANSOM, et al.,

12

No. 2:17-cv-01367 GEB AC (PS)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

MICHAEL MACK, JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the

17
18

undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff Clinton Ransom has requested

19

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. The request will be

20

denied because (1) plaintiff’s IFP affidavit fails to establish that he cannot afford the filing fee,

21

and (2) the complaint, in its current form, is frivolous.
I. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THE IFP APPLICATION

22

Plaintiff Clinton Ransom filed an application to proceed IFP that is entirely blank. ECF

23
24

No. 2. To prevail on a motion to proceed IFP, plaintiff need not demonstrate that he is

25

completely destitute, but he must show that because of his poverty, he “cannot pay the court costs

26

and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir.

27

2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948)). In

28

////
1

1

addition, plaintiff “must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id.

2

(quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981)).

3

Because plaintiff Ransom filed a blank application, plaintiff’s application fails to establish

4

that he is entitled to prosecute this case without paying the required fees. The application will

5

therefore be denied.

6

II. SCREENING

7

Where “plaintiff’s claim appears to be frivolous on the face of the complaint,” the district

8

court may “deny[] plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614,

9

617 (9th Cir. 1990). Where, as here, the facially frivolous action has already been filed, the court

10

is “authorized to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Reece v. State of Wash., 310 F.2d

11

139, 140 (9th Cir. 1962).

12

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

13

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

14

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they

15

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the

16

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327;

17

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at

18

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v. Pliler,

19

627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions

20

cast in the form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to

21

judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981);

22

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187

23

(2001).

24

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers.

25

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may

26

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

27

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.

28

2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
2

1

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See

2

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

A. The Complaint

4

The complaint appears to be brought on behalf of four plaintiffs: Clinton Ransom, R.E.R.,

5

Robert Lopez, Lorene Thomas, and R.L. ECF No. 1 at 1. The complaint was filed by plaintiff

6

Clinton Ransom. Id. At the top of the complaint plaintiff wrote the word “class.” Id. Under

7

“Basis for Jurisdiction” plaintiff checked the box labeled “Federal question.” Id. at 3. When

8

asked to list the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States

9

Constitution at issue, plaintiff wrote: “limited warranty in habitable, breach of contract, fraud,

10

assaults and batteries, real property liability, provisional negligence, retaliation, business tort,

11

intentional distress, unsecured mailbox, gov. extortion.” Id. at 4. Under “Statement of Claim”

12

plaintiff alleges that “the property” is roach and bedbug infested and otherwise uninhabitable, and

13

that the owners and staff violate tenants and filed false criminal reports, engaged in illegal

14

evictions and tenant violations, and disregard tenant safety while taking government money. Id.

15

at 6.

16

B. Analysis

17

As a preliminary matter, the word “class” written at the top of the complaint indicates that

18

plaintiff is attempting to bring a class action. Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding

19

without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of

20

a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost

21

absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se.

22

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot

23

“fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976).

25

This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and instead will be construed as an

26

individual civil suit brought by Clinton Ransom as sole plaintiff.

27
28

The complaint does not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for
federal jurisdiction (that is, why the lawsuit is filed in this federal court rather than a state court),
3

1

or plaintiff’s claims (that is, who did what to plaintiff and how he was harmed), even though

2

those things are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (a)(2). None of the allegations plaintiff has

3

made rely appear to rely on federal law such that jurisdiction would be appropriate in this court.

4

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed as frivolous.

5

III.

6
7
8
9

AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend his complaint. The court will therefore
provide guidance for amendment.
The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims.
That is, it must state what the defendant did that harmed the plaintiff. The amended complaint

10

must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is being alleged against whom. See

11

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where

12

the district court was “literally guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted

13

against certain defendants”).

14

In setting forth the facts, plaintiff must not go overboard, however. He must avoid

15

excessive repetition of the same allegations. He must avoid narrative and storytelling. That is,

16

the complaint should not include every detail of what happened, nor recount the details of

17

conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor give a running account of plaintiff’s

18

hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should contain only those facts needed to

19

show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.

20

Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s

21

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

22

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

23

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline

24

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint

25

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &

26

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

27

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

28

alleged.
4

1

IV. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY

2

This complaint is being dismissed because it does not tell the court why it has authority to

3

hear the case. Federal courts can only hear certain types of cases. The complaint says it is based

4

on federal law, but none of the stated claims seem to actually rely on federal law. Also,

5

individuals representing themselves can only represent themselves; they cannot represent other

6

people or bring class actions.

7

With respect to the application for IFP, a blank application does not tell the court why

8

plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee. The form needs to be fully filled out. Because the form was

9

not filled out, IFP status is denied.

10

Plaintiff has an opportunity to fix these problems by submitting to the court a new IFP

11

application and a new complaint, that conforms to the requirements discussed above, within 30

12

days of this order.

13

V. CONCLUSION

14

For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without

16

prejudice to its renewal in proper form, as explained above.

17

2. If plaintiff files a proper IFP application, he may also file an amended complaint.

18

3. Plaintiff must file his renewed IFP application and amended complaint within 30 days

19

of the date of this order. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must do his best to follow the

20

guidance provided in this order.

21

DATED: July 10, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5