In re: Angel L. Alvarado
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/29/2014. "(1) The Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b)(1). (2) Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above on or before October 29, 2014. Failure to timely amend the Complaint and cure its pleading deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action f or failure to state a claim. (3) The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff court forms for a prisoner civil rights complaint and habeas petition so that he can comply with the directions in this Order." (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). Angel L. Alvarado served by first class mail a t the address of record on September 29, 2014. The Clerks Office included the following court forms: 1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and instructions; 2) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and instructions; 3) Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint and instructions; 4) Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner and instructions.
Fto underIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
IN RE: ANGEL L. ALVARADO,
N.Y. I.D. #93A8360,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
____________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 14-00394 SOM/RLP
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Angel L.
Alvarado’s pleading.
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Green
Haven Correctional Facility, located in Stormville, New York.
Plaintiff names no defendants, alleges no discernible claims,
asserts no basis for this court’s jurisdiction or venue, and sets
forth no demand for relief.
He has also failed to submit the
civil filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status.
Doc. No. 3.
See Order,
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to
amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915(A)(b)(1), for
failure to state a claim or comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. STATUTORY SCREENING
Federal courts must screen all cases in which prisoners
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity or seek to proceed without prepayment of
the civil filing fees.
1915(A)(a).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(2) and
The court must identify cognizable claims, and
dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Id. at
§§ 1915(b)(2) and 1915A(b).
The court must construe a pro se complaint liberally,
accept all allegations of material fact as true, and construe
those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
Leave to
amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the
plaintiff can correct the complaint’s defects.
Lopez v. Smith,
203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
II.
DISCUSSION
To state a claim under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement” showing the court’s jurisdiction, showing the pleader
is entitled to relief, and setting forth a demand for relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
“Such a statement must simply give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.”
U.S. 506, 512 (2002).
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A
complaint “must set forth sufficient factual matter accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
2
Id.
At
a minimum, a plaintiff must detail what his claims are, when they
occurred, and who is allegedly responsible.
Although neatly written, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
entirely incoherent.
Plaintiff refers to “vested interests,” due
process, jurisdiction, and “Instruction(s) before the United
States District Court, District of Hawaii,” but his pleading is
simply a string of words and sentences with no connection or
rational meaning.
There are no explanatory details enabling the
court to understand what Plaintiff’s claims are or who allegedly
wronged him, when the alleged violations occurred, why he asserts
jurisdiction and venue in this district, or what relief he seeks.
Because Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to allow the
court to understand his allegations or the circumstances
surrounding his claims, his pleading is DISMISSED with leave to
amend to correct its deficiencies.
III. LEAVE TO AMEND
The Complaint is DISMISSED.
Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint on or before October 29, 2014.
The amended
complaint must cure the deficiencies noted above and demonstrate
how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of
Plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights.
Defendants must be identified in some manner, and each claim and
the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
3
If Plaintiff amends his Complaint, he must explain who
is allegedly liable to him, what these individuals did that
violated his rights, what those rights are, when and where the
actions he sues over occurred, why venue is proper in the
District of Hawaii, what basis for federal jurisdiction exists,
and what relief he seeks.
Plaintiff must advise the court
whether he is complaining about the conditions of his confinement
(that is, bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that some
defendant violated his constitutional rights while in prison), or
whether he is challenging his conviction or sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
These types of claims are subject to different
standards of review and must be asserted in separate actions.
IV. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, this
dismissal may later count as a “strike” under the “3–strikes”
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d
1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding “dismissals following the
repeated violation of Rule 8(a)’s ‘short and plain statement’
requirement, following leave to amend, are dismissals for failure
to state a claim under § 1915(g)” (emphasis in original)); see
also Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding
that, after an incomprehensible complaint is dismissed under Rule
8 and the plaintiff is given, but fails to take advantage of,
4
leave to amend, “the judge [is] left with [ ] a complaint that,
being irremediably unintelligible, [gives] rise to an inference
that the plaintiff could not state a claim”(cited with approval
in Knapp, 738 F.3d at 1110)).
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the court
may, without further notice, dismiss this action for his failure
to state a claim.
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61
(9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for
failure to comply with any order of the court).
V.
(1)
claim.
CONCLUSION
The Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b)(1).
(2)
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint
curing the deficiencies noted above on or before October 29,
2014.
Failure to timely amend the Complaint and cure its
pleading deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action for
failure to state a claim.
(3)
The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff court forms for
a prisoner civil rights complaint and habeas petition so that he
can comply with the directions in this Order.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 29, 2014.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
In RE: Alvarado, 1:14-cv-00394 SOM/RLP; scrg 2014; J:\Denise's Draft
Orders\SOM\Alvarado 14-394 som (ftsc friv dsm lv amd).wpd
6
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?