Clark v. Boyle et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT, GRANTING REQUEST TO PERMIT E-FILING, AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Conference set for 4/25/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/17/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

PETER CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

CHARLES BOYLE, et al.,

15

Defendants
____________________________________/

16

No. C 12-3559 RS
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT,
GRANTING REQUEST TO PERMIT
E-FILING, AND CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

17
18

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (“IFP”). Plaintiff having made an

19

adequate showing of indigence, the IFP application is granted. Under 28 U.S.C. '1915, however,

20

the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party seeks leave to proceed in forma

21

pauperis if the Court determines that the action (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim

22

on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

23

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2). As presently drafted, the complaint is without merit in

24

that it fails to set forth a cognizable claim. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

25

that to state a claim, a pleading must contain, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The first part of this requirement—“a short and

27

plain statement of the claim” —cannot be read without reference to the second part —“showing that

28

the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court has made clear that while “showing” an

1

entitlement to relief does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it does “demand[] more than an

2

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

3

1949 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Thus, “[a] pleading that

4

offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

5

do.’ [citation.] Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further

6

factual enhancement.’” Id.

not a “short and plain” statement, but instead is filled with unnecessary and improper argument and

9

citations. Inclusion of extraneous materials not only violates the spirit and letter of the rules, it also

10

renders it nearly impossible to determine whether any allegations of fact buried within the rhetoric

11
For the Northern District of California

Here, the complaint fails to comply with these requirements in at least two ways. First, it is

8

United States District Court

7

might support a viable claim against at least some defendants. Second, and more importantly, the

12

relatively few non-argumentative or conclusory facts pleaded as to plaintiff’s own interactions with

13

defendants “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal,

14

129 S. Ct. at 1950.

15

Additionally, while it is not possible to discern the precise nature of all of the claims plaintiff

16

may be intending to assert, it is clear that many of his theories are simply not viable. For example,

17

although the complaint conclusorily asserts that defendants in some instances acted “under the color

18

of law,” no facts have been pleaded to suggest that defendants qualify as a state actors, for the

19

purposes of asserting constitutional claims.

20

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Although it is far from certain that the deficiencies

21

in the complaint can be cured, in light of his pro se status, plaintiff will be given leave to amend. If

22

plaintiff elects to amend, he must do so within thirty days. In his amended complaint, plaintiff

23

should state the specific facts supporting each claim, and plainly identify the claims asserted against

24

each defendant. Plaintiff is encouraged to give careful consideration as to whether it is appropriate

25

to include all of the defendants and legal theories listed in the original complaint. The Court directs

26

plaintiff’s attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is available along with further

27

information on the Court’s website located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

28

Plaintiff’s request for leave to register for e-filing in this action is granted. Plaintiff may
register for ECF at the following website: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/newreg/index.html.
2

1

Plaintiff must also register on PACER to view documents and the docket sheet: www.pacer.gov.

2

Plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all local rules pertaining to

3

electronic filing . By registering, plaintiff accepts responsibility for all technical requirements and

4

computer-related tasks associated with participation in the ECF program.

5

After registering on ECF and PACER, plaintiff must file a notice of ECF registration that

6

plaintiff has made available an electronic mail address for service of papers electronically filed on

7

the docket. Upon filing of such notice, the court will designate this action for the ECF program.

8

This exemption may be revoked at the discretion of the court at any time.

9

The initial Case Management Conference herein is continued to April 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16
17

Dated: 1/17/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3