(PS) Storman v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 1/27/2025 ORDERING the Court will defer ruling on 2 Motion to Proceed IFP until plaintiff resubmits in legible format within 30 days. The Court will also defer ruling on 3 Request for Accommodations until he has submitted an amended complaint within 30 days. The Clerk shall provide blank copies of a pro se complaint and application to proceed IFP. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. STORMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:24-cv-03658-TLN-SCR ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned 18 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The Court will defer ruling on the motion because portions of it are illegible. 21 Plaintiff’s complaint is also almost entirely illegible. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court will 22 allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that is legible and Plaintiff shall also resubmit his 23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. I. SCREENING 24 25 A. Legal Standard 26 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In 1 1 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short 3 and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 4 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 5 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 6 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 8 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 9 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 13 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 17 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 18 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 19 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 20 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the 21 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v. 22 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of 23 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 24 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 25 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 26 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 27 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 28 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 2 1 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 2 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. 3 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 B. 5 Plaintiff’s complaint is largely illegible. At page four, where Plaintiff is to assert the basis The Complaint 6 for jurisdiction, most of the handwriting is illegible, and it appears to say “gross negligence,” 7 which would not be a basis for federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 4. The factual 8 “statement of claim” section is indecipherable. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff attaches to his 9 complaint a one-page typed document, which appears to be an excerpt from medical records. 10 ECF No. 1 at 7. The relevance to whatever claim he is attempting to assert in the complaint is 11 unclear. The typed note discusses “elder abuse” and states that Plaintiff’s “land lady” has yelled 12 at him for spilling coffee and has been verbally abusive in other instances. 13 C. 14 The primary deficiency with Plaintiff’s complaint is that it is illegible. A court cannot Analysis 15 perform its screening function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the complaint is illegible. See Ramirez 16 v. Perez, 2022 WL 21827691 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Local Rule 130(b) also requires that documents 17 submitted for filing be legible. The largely illegible complaint does not set forth a basis for 18 federal jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint 19 also does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and does not put Defendants on 20 notice of the claims against them. See Case v. Waddington, 2007 WL 1140282 (W.D. Wash. 21 2007) (dismissing action as it “cannot proceed without a legible complaint” and noting it would 22 prejudice Ds who “would not receive sufficient notice as to the allegations brought against 23 them”). 24 The Court is aware that Plaintiff’s complaint mentions in the typed attachment “spilling 25 coffee due to his tremor.” ECF No. 1 at 7. The undersigned recognizes that is possible that 26 Plaintiff’s handwriting difficulties are due to the tremor. Plaintiff has also filed a request for 27 reasonable accommodation, which appears to request pro bono counsel. ECF No. 3. However, 28 the Court cannot evaluate the appropriateness of appointing counsel without having a legible 3 1 complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff is a frequent litigant who has filed more than 30 actions 2 in this Court over the years. Plaintiff in December 2024, filed Storman v. Arrowhead Housing, 3 24-cv-03658-DJC-AC and Storman v. Xfinity, 24-cv-03753-DJC-CSK. While the complaints in 4 both those actions are difficult to read, they are more decipherable than the instant complaint. It 5 thus appears that Plaintiff can submit documents that are clear enough to read. 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court “shall dismiss” a case if it determines the 7 action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 8 defendant immune from such relief. The complaint, as currently drafted and largely illegible, 9 does not set forth a basis for federal jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 10 granted. 11 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 12 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 13 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 14 statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 15 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 16 paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 17 complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where 18 possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 19 complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 20 (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 21 The amended complaint must not force the Court and the defendants to guess at what is 22 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 23 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 24 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 25 complaint should contain specific allegations as to the actions of each named defendant. 26 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 27 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 28 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 4 1 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 2 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 3 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 4 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 5 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 6 alleged. The amended complaint must also be legible. See Local Rule 130(b); Williams v. 7 Prudhel, 2023 WL 2374130 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (“If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the 8 amended complaint must be legible.”). 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12 2) until Plaintiff has resubmitted it in a legible format. Plaintiff shall resubmit the 13 motion within 30 days of the date of this order. The Court will also defer ruling on 14 Plaintiff’s request for accommodation (ECF No. 3) until he has submitted an amended 15 complaint. 16 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 17 that addresses the defects set forth above. The amended complaint must include a 18 sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff must comply with 19 Local Rule 130(b) which requires documents “be presented by typewriting, printing, 20 photographic or offset reproduction, or other clearly legible process, without erasures or 21 interlining that materially defaces the document, and shall appear on one side of each 22 sheet only.” (emphasis added). If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the 23 undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed. 24 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice 25 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure. 27 //// 28 //// 5 1 2 3 4 4. The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff blank copies of a pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. DATED: January 27, 2025. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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?