Anderson Hanson v. Clear Conveyance Corporation, et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/15/18 GRANTING 3 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, as provided herein. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTINA ANDERSON HANSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-2007-TLN-EFB PS

v.

ORDER

CLEAR CONVEYANCE
CORPORATION aka CLEAR RECON
CORPORATION; WELLS FARGO, N.A,
fka WORLD SAVINGS BANK; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her

20

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 3.

21

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22

Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

23

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the

24

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on

25

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed

26

below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

2

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it

3

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

4

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562-563, 570 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

5

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

6

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

7

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

8

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are

9

true.” Id. at 555 (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of

10

cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal

11

theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

13

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

14

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

15

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading

16

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a

17

complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

18

to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon

19

which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 47).

20

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants Clear Conveyance Corporation and Wells

21

Fargo Bank, N. A. ECF No. 1 at 1. The complaint appears to concern a mortgage dispute

22

between plaintiff and defendants related to real property located at 5610 Bears Den Road,

23

Placerville, California (“subject property”). Id. at 5. But the specific factual basis of the dispute

24

is not easily gleaned from the complaint, which consists almost exclusively of legal conclusions.

25

Plaintiff alleges that she was denied her right due to process and other unspecified constitutional

26

rights by “improper mortgage company procedures.” Id. at 5. She also alleges that defendants do

27

not have a legal right, title, or interest in the subject property,” and that the “existence of any valid

28

trustee’s deed which could benefit Defendants would be null and void . . . .” Id. She further
2

1

claims that a “cloud on all title activity exists due to no definitive claimant of ownership of the

2

note(s), due to divergent paths taken by both the mortgage note and the deed of trust.”

3

These allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

4

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

5

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

6

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

7

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. The allegations must be

8

short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

9

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307

10
11

F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff’s contention that she was denied her right to due process and other constitutional

12

rights suggests that she seeks to asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim for

13

violation of a constitutional right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right

14

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

15

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

16

42, 48 (1988). “‘Section 1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how

17

discriminatory or wrong.’” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th

18

Cir. 1999) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)); see also Apao v.

19

Bank of New York, 324 F.3d 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (Fourteenth Amendment “shields citizens

20

from unlawful governmental action, but does not affect conduct by private entities.”). Here,

21

plaintiff fails to allege that either defendant is a state actor or was otherwise acting under color of

22

state law.

23

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an

24

amended complaint. Any such complaint must allege a cognizable legal theory and sufficient

25

facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

26

2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any

27

deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the

28

amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against defendant and shall specify a
3

1

basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. It shall also plead plaintiff’s claims in

2

“numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as

3

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper

4

that bears line numbers in the left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local

5

Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each

6

claim alleged and against which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule

7

10(b), and must plead clear facts that support each claim under each header.

8
9

Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to
make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be

10

complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

11

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once

12

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case.

13

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

14

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.

15

1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v.

16

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to

17

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order

18

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 110.

19

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

20

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is granted.

21

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein.

22

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

23

complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must

24

be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in

25

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.

26

DATED: November 15, 2018.

27
28
4