Ransom v. Volunteers of America

Filing 3

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/4/2017 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2 application to proceed IFP is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendant should be DISMISSED without prejudice, so that plaintiff may seek to include them in an amended complaint in Ransom v. SHRA, 2:17-cv-01366-TLN-AC. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLINTON RANSOM,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-02494 JAM AC PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in

18

by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that

20

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.

21
22

I. SCREENING
A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not

23

complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to

24

dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which

25

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

26

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the

27

complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of

28

Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint
1

1

must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the

2

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement

3

showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and

4

(3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth

5

simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

12

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

13

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint

14

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court

15

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must

16

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a

17

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

18

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

19

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

20

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice

21

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

22

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must

23

allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

24

570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

25

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

26

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

27
28

A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See
2

1

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

2

II. THE COMPLAINT

3

The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act against defendant

4

for their alleged failure to properly maintain sidewalk areas around plaintiff’s home. ECF No. 1.

5

The court notes that plaintiff has an Americans with Disabilities Act case currently pending

6

against the same defendant (as well as other defendants), also for alleged housing-related

7

violations. See, Ransom v. Sacramento Housing Redeveloping Agency (“SHRA”) et al., 2:17-cv-

8

01366-TLN-AC.

9

III. ANALYSIS

10

This case is duplicative of one that is already pending before the undersigned, and

11

therefore must be dismissed. The correct way for plaintiff to bring the additional allegations

12

asserted against defendant in this case is to seek to amend his complaint in the already-pending

13

case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

14

IV. CONCLUSION

15
16

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED;

17

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendant should

18

be DISMISSED without prejudice, so that plaintiff may seek to include them in an amended

19

complaint in Ransom v. SHRA, 2:17-cv-01366-TLN-AC.

20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

21

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

22

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

23

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

24

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

2

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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED

4

DATED: December 4, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4