Evans v. Town of Hampton, New Hampshire et al

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT re 17 , 18 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/12/13. "The court grants Evans one more opportunity to state the legal bases for his claims before terminating this action. Any Second Amended Complaint must cure these deficiencies by stating a claim upon which relief may be granted. Evans may file a Second Amended Complaint tha t is complete in itself (that is, does not incorporate any prior complaint by reference) no later than July 31, 2013. He must also either pay the civil filing fee or submit a new IFP. Failure to either meet the above deadline or to state a claim upon which relief may be granted shall cause this action to be automatically dismissed. Given the court's dismissal of Evans's First Amended Complaint, the court denies Evans's IFP as moot." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Brian Evans served by first class mail at the address of record on July 12, 2013. A copy of the court's Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs shall be included in the mailing to Mr. Evans.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BRIAN EVANS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW
)
HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00315 SOM/KSC
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT
Currently before the court is Evans’s First Amended
Complaint along with his application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs (the “IFP”).

ECF No. 17.

Because

Evans fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this court dismisses Evans’s First Amended Complaint
and denies his IFP as moot.
As the court stated in its Order Dismissing Complaint
and Denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs as Moot (“Order”), Evans must comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ECF No. 17.

Specifically,

Evans must comply with Rule 8, which requires “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

While Rule 8 does not require

detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

“[O]nly a complaint that states

a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”

Id.

To state a plausible claim, the complaint must, at a minimum,
“plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”

Id.

Evans’s First Amended Complaint asserts conspiracy to
commit fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, Evans has not included factual allegations going to the
claims.

The legal bases for his claims remain unclear.

Even

construing Evans’s First Amended Complaint liberally, see
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.
2003), the court cannot identify any plausible ground for either
of Evans’s claims.

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“To survive a

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)).
The court grants Evans one more opportunity to state
the legal bases for his claims before terminating this action.
Any Second Amended Complaint must cure these deficiencies by
stating a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Evans may file

a Second Amended Complaint that is complete in itself (that is,
does not incorporate any prior complaint by reference) no later

2

than July 31, 2013.

He must also either pay the civil filing fee

or submit a new IFP.

Failure to either meet the above deadline

or to state a claim upon which relief may be granted shall cause
this action to be automatically dismissed.

Given the court’s

dismissal of Evans’s First Amended Complaint, the court denies
Evans’s IFP as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 12, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Evans v. Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, et al.; Civil No. 13-00315
SOM/BMK; ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS
MOOT

3