Gremmels v. Apple et al

Filing 7

ORDER Granting in Forma Pauperis Application and Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Sallie Kim on September 8, 2021. (sklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:21-cv-06073-SK Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTIAN GREMMELS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 21-cv-06073-SK
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
SCREENING COMPLAINT

v.
APPLE, et al.,
Defendants.

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2

12

Plaintiff Christian Gremmels (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and

13

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkts. 1, 2.) The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file

14

an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an

15

affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. §

16

1915(a). The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee and

17

thus GRANTS the application for IFP. However, the in forma pauperis statute provides that the

18

Court shall dismiss the case if, inter alia, the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a

19

claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, federal courts are under

20

a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears

21

subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704

22

F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is

23

lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim

25

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To comply with Rule 8, “[s]pecific facts are not

26

necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

27

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

28

While a complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, it is “a plaintiff’s obligation to

Case 3:21-cv-06073-SK Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3

1

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief.’” Bell v. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

2

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Plaintiff must provide more than assert “labels and

3

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.

4

Rather, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is

5

plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege the following information

6

in an amended complaint: (1) the actions by each Defendant that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims; (2)

7

what laws or rights were violated by each Defendant’s conduct, and (3) how Plaintiff was harmed.

8

It is not clear from the Complaint what claim or claims Plaintiff seeks to assert. Additionally,

9

Plaintiff groups all of the Defendants together and, thus, the Court cannot determine what Plaintiff

10

alleges each Defendant did.
Moreover, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts can only adjudicate cases

13

which the Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity

14

of citizenship (where the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to

15

which the United States is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of

16

America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil

17

cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at

18

377.

19

To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a claim under federal law, Plaintiff shall clarify what

20

statute and what facts are alleged in support of that claim. If Plaintiff states sufficient facts to

21

allege at least one federal claim, Plaintiff shall allege facts to show how any state-law claims are

22

connected to the federal claim to support supplemental jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff is

23

relying on diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff shall clarify the citizenship of all parties and allege facts

24

to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint, but

26

will provide leave to amend to address the deficiencies described in this Order. Plaintiff’s

27

deadline to file an amended complaint is October 8, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended

28

complaint by this date, the Court will reassign this matter to a district court judge with a
2

Case 3:21-cv-06073-SK Document 7 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3

1
2

recommendation that the action be dismissed.
The Court ADVISES Plaintiff that the district court has produced a guide for pro se

3

litigants called Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which

4

provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, including discovery, motions,

5

and trial. It is available electronically online (http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook) or in hard

6

copy free of charge from the Clerk’s Office. The Court further advises Plaintiff that he also may

7

wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2021
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3