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)

Download PDF
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 ( 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?