Branch v. United States of America

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/30/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No.16-cv-03811-JSC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

(Dkt. No. 14)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Clarence A. Branch, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United

18

States of America. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

19

pauperis and reserved to a later time evaluation of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt.

20

No. 3.) The Court thereafter issued an Order to Show Cause because mail sent to Plaintiff at his

21

last known address had been returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff then responded to

22

the Order to Show Cause, provided his new address, and consented to the jurisdiction of the

23

undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 10.) The Court then reviewed the complaint under

24

Section 1915 and dismissed it for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff had failed to identify a

25

cognizable legal theory. (Dkt. No. 11.) On the deadline to do so, Plaintiff filed a document

26

captioned “Amendment.” (Dkt. No. 14.) It is unclear if this document is an attempt to amend

27

the complaint as it fails to address any of the issues raised in the Court’s prior Order, but in an

28

1

excess of caution, the Court will construe it as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 1 Having

2

reviewed the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 1915, the Court DISMISSES the

3

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
DISCUSSION

4
5

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a

6

party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or

7

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

8

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490

9

U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). Upon dismissal,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless

12

it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”

13

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks

14

omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
In dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court noted that it had been unable to discern

15
16

any cognizable legal claim from Plaintiff’s filing. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fares no

17

better. Below the caption of “Amendment” on the first page, the filing states:

18

In-Personnam (Grounds)

19

relief; “Payment”, Pay to the order of Clarence A Branch the demand

20

relief: “Laches Doctrine”

21

(Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) Other than these three sentences, there is no other written component to the

22

FAC. Instead, Plaintiff has attached 9 pages of exhibits, many of which he previously submitted,

23

including a handwritten “Interrogatory # 3” which is addressed to the Honorable Judge Sidney

24

Thomas. (Id. at 8.) As with his prior complaint, Plaintiff’s amendment presents “no cognizable

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff filed a response to a prior to Order to Show Cause on October 17—the same day as the
Court’s dismissal Order—although it was not docketed until October 19. (Dkt. No. 12.) This
filing is not responsive to the Court’s dismissal order and contains an improper request that the
contents of the filing be submitted under seal. The Court STRIKES the filing for failure to
comply with Local Rule 79-5 regarding filing matters under seal.
2

1

legal theory [and] an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.”

2

Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010).

3

The Court thus again dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim. “A district court

4

should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the

5

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,

6

1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (per curiam). Because the

7

Court cannot say with certainty that further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims would be futile since

8

the Court has yet been able to glean the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claim(s), the Court will give

9

Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim.
CONCLUSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall file an amended

12

complaint by December 19, 2016. Any amended complaint must specify the basis for his legal

13

claim(s) and the facts which support his claim(s). If Plaintiff fails to identify the legal and factual

14

basis for his claims, or fails to file an amended complaint by this date, this action will be dismissed.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2016

17
18
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CLARENCE A. BRANCH,

Case No. 16-cv-03811-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 30, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Clarence A. Branch
391 Ellis Street
General Delivery
San Francisco, CA 94102

21
22
23

Dated: November 30, 2016

24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
4