Espinoza v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association et al
Filing
5
ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint with leave to amend. ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Marlen Espinoza. Plaintiff may submit another fully completed IFP application. Plaintiff must file a first amended complaint no later than 7/25/2014. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/11/2014. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARLEN ESPINOZA,
Case No. 14-cv-03057-KAW
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Dkt. Nos. 1 & 2
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
12
13
The Court has received Plaintiff Marlen Espinoza's complaint and application to proceed in
14
forma pauperis (IFP), both filed in this Court on July 3, 2014. The Court may authorize a plaintiff
15
to file an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an
16
affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. §
17
1915(a). The IFP statute also provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time the
18
Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or
19
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
20
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff’s IFP application, however, is incomplete as filed, as she has not fully answered
21
22
question number 2. If she has not received any income from those additional sources, she must
23
check “no.” She has also not answered question number 4b. In addition, this application is signed
24
under penalty of perjury, so her response to question number 5, where she says that she does not
25
own a home, contradicts some of the facts set forth in her complaint, which states that she is in
26
possession of the Subject Property. Plaintiff may resubmit an amended IFP application that is
27
completed in full.
28
///
1
Additionally, it is impossible to discern from Plaintiff's complaint any of the essential
2
details of the events that triggered her lawsuit, or the legal theories under which she seeks relief.
3
Plaintiff has failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
4
entitled to relief" as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, the
5
complaint is replete with factual inconsistencies, including where the Subject Property is located,
6
as there are at least two different addresses, and the complaint asserts that it is located in San
7
Mateo and Marin Counties, as wells as in Union City, which is in Alameda County. There are
8
also conflicting dates regarding the date of loan origination. Further, the complaint also mentions
9
Defendants Deutsche and PDS, but neither is a named defendant. It is also unclear as to whether
Plaintiff is still in possession of the Subject Property or has an ownership interest, based on the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
facts and the relief requested. Lastly, it appears that Mr. Espinoza (whose first name is also
12
currently and impermissibly unknown), who is deceased according to Plaintiff’s IFP application,
13
is the individual who entered into the residential mortgage loan. Therefore, it is unclear whether
14
Plaintiff has standing to proceed with this lawsuit.
15
Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court hereby
16
dismisses plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no
17
later than July 25, 2014 or the case may be dismissed.
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?