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)

Download PDF
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?