Cobb v. Thomsen

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING MOTION FOR BUSINESS MEETING 6 10 3 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/3/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/3/2012: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CHRISTOPHER COBB and UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12
13

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DENYING
“MOTION FOR BUSINESS MEETING”

Plaintiffs,

10
11

No. C 12-1045 SI

v.
RON THOMSEN, ASSESSOR, COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA,
Defendant.

/

14
15

On March 1, 2012, plaintiff Christopher Cobb filed a complaint listing himself and the United

16

States of America as plaintiffs, against defendant Alameda County Assessor Ron Thomsen. The

17

complaint references numerous statutes, as well as real property located at 4975 Grizzly Peak Boulevard

18

in Oakland, California. Plaintiff has also submitted exhibits regarding that property, including an

19

allegedly “fictitious” grant deed. Compl ¶ 6 & Docket No. 7. Plaintiff has also filed an application to

20

proceed in forma pauperis, a “Motion to Amend,” and an “Amended: Motion for Business Meeting.”

21

Docket Nos. 3, 6 & 10. The Motion to Amend states, among other things, that plaintiff “would like to

22

acquire a Title to an Estate of Inheritance (Freehold) as the Successor (Successour); (U.S.C. Title 1,

23

Chapter 1, Statute 5) to a Business Transaction, with the Judges Chamber, in regards to GRANT DEED

24

. . . .” Docket No. 6 at 2.

25

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint filed in forma

26

pauperis if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim.

27

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the complaint is deficient because it does not allege any specific claims, and

28

there does not appear to be any basis for federal jurisdiction. For example, although the complaint

See 28 U.S.C.

1

references statutes and real property, the complaint does not contain a statement of facts regarding

2

plaintiff’s claims related to that property. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH

3

LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir.

4

2000). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Court DENIES

5

plaintiff’s “motion for a business meeting.”

6

If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint shall (1) state the basis for federal

7

jurisdiction; (2) specifically identify the claims that plaintiff is asserting (for example, if plaintiff is

8

suing under a federal or state statute, the complaint shall identify that statute); (3) state, as clearly as

9

possible, the facts giving rise to the complaint, including the dates upon which the events occurred; and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

(4) state the relief that plaintiff seeks. Any amended complaint must be filed by April 20, 2012.
This order resolves Docket Nos. 3, 6 and 10.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 3, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2