Ransom v. Department of Veteran Affairs
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/17/17 recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. F&R referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-01392-TLN-CKD (PS)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has asserted federal question jurisdiction based upon
allegations that defendant violated the American’s with Disability Act and the California State
Housing Code. (See ECF No. 1 at 4–5.) On August 24, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) At the same time, the court admonished
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and
conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action
is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court has
determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain
statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the
Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must
give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and
succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649
(9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support
plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be
dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth
the jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff
must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a
deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625
F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).
(Id. at 2–3.)
Plaintiff was granted thirty days, from August 24, 2017, to file an amended complaint.
(Id. at 3.) Because plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or request additional time, it
appears that he has chosen to abandon this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
The action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 17, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14/ps.17-1392.ransom v. va.F&R dismissal
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?