Karas v. Access Hollywood

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 12-02310 CRB

PAULA J. KARAS,

v.
ACCESS HOLLYWOOD,

15

Defendant.

/

16

Plaintiff Paula J. Karas moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. §

17
18

1915. Dkt. 2. A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, IFP under

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint

20

is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted, or seeks

21

monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

22

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the

23

Court finds that the pleading fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court GRANTS

24

Karas’s IFP application, but that her complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in

25

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

26

may be granted.

27

I.

28

LEGAL STANDARD
Any person seeking to commence a civil suit in district court must pay a filing fee of

$350. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A district court has the authority to waive this fee for any person

1

who shows in an affidavit that he or she is unable to pay it. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A

2

district court may dismiss the complaint of an IFP applicant at any time if it determines that

3

the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The legal sufficiency of a complaint is tested under Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 12(b)(6). Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule

6

12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for

7

relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). That is, the complaint

8

must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence

9

of the claim. Id. at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the complaint lacks a cognizable

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

11

The district court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in the

12

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

13

However, pro se litigants are not “excused from knowing the most basic pleading

14

requirements.” Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th

15

Cir. 2000).

16

II.

17

DISCUSSION
Karas has shown in her IFP application that she is unable to pay the filing fee required

18

to file a complaint. Pl.’s IFP App., Dkt. No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS her IFP

19

application. Karas’s Complaint, however, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

20

granted.

21

In her Complaint, Karas claims that Defendant Access Hollywood violated her rights

22

under the United States Constitution. Compl. 1. Dkt. No. 1. She alleges, in entirety: “Now

23

comes the plaintiff pro se in the above captioned matter and hereby asserts to this United

24

States District Court that the plaintiff’s United States claims against the defendants is that the

25

defendants violated the plaintiff’s United States Amendment Rights under the United States

26

Constitution as a media viewer.” Compl. 1. Plaintiff has also submitted an “Affidavit of

27

facts,” dkt. 5, to support her “Motion for Trial,” dkt. 4. First, the Court notes these are

28

improper filings, and all of Plaintiff’s claims and factual allegations must be included in the
2

1

Complaint. Moreover, the “Affidavit of facts,” includes only the following further

2

information: “The plaintiff attests as a media viewer that for many years to present the

3

defendants have violated the plaintiff’s United States Amendment Rights under the United

4

States Constitution to view television media that is suitable for a media viewer.

5

Unconstitutional media coverage of but not limited to indecent exposure, abortion and

6

death.” Dkt. 5.
Plaintiff does not state which Amendments to the Constitution she alleges defendant

7
8

has violated. The Amendment to the Constitution “apply to and restrict only the Federal

9

Government and not private persons.” Public Utils. Comm’n of Dist. of Columbia v. Pollak,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

343 U.S. 451, 461 (1952). Federal government officials may be sued in their capacity as

11

individuals. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

12

U.S. 388 (1971).

13

Here, Karas’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief under any Amendment to the

14

Constitution because she fails to allege that Access Hollywood is an entity acting on behalf

15

of the federal government. Karas’s Complaint also fails to state a claim for relief under 42

16

U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for constitutional violations committed by

17

persons acting under the color of state law, as Karas does not allege that Access Hollywood

18

acted under the authority of state law when it purportedly violated her rights. West v.

19

Adkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

20

III.

21

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

22

The Court sua sponte DISMISSES the action without prejudice and with leave to amend.

23

Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. Failure to do so may result in

24

dismissal of Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: July 30, 2012
G:\CRBALL\2012\2310\Order Granting IFP and Dismissing Case.wpd

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3