Smith v. HSBC et. al.
Filing
18
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 6/24/15 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RONNIE VANCE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
3:15-CV-264-PK
OPINION AND
ORDER
v.
HSBC BANK,
Defendant.
SIMON, District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se Ronnie Vance Smith filed this action in Jonna pauper is against defendant
HSBC Bank1 on Februmy 13, 2015. On February 24, 2015, noting that it was entirely unclear
1
By and through his complaint (#2), his motion (#3) for temporaty restraining order, and
his so-styled notice (#4) of pendency of action, Smith identifies the defendant(s) in his action as
"HSBC Bank et al.," but nowhere identifies any defendant other than HSBC Bank. In his
application to proceed informa pauperis, where directed to "Enter full name of ALL
defendant(s)" Smith listed only HSBC Bank as a defendant. On that basis, I conclude that HSBC
Bank is the sole named defendant in this action.
what claim or claims Smith intended to bring against the defendant, Judge Papak ordered Smith
to show cause within thhiy days why his action should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim, and in the alternative to amend his complaint to clearly state one or more claims. On
March 13, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's motion for extension of time to amend his
pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before May 12, 2015. On May
12, 2015, Judge Papak granted Smith's second motion for extension of time to amend his
pleading, ordering that Smith file his amended complaint on or before June 12, 2015. That latter
deadline has now passed, and the court has received no response to Judge Papak's order to show
cause.
In connection with proceedings in Jonna pauperis such as this, the district courts are
obliged to dismiss sua sponte actions failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
** *
(B)
the action ...
***
(ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ....
28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2). Because it is not possible to dete1mine from Smith's allegations what
claim or claims Smith may intend to state, or indeed that Smith has any valid claim that may lie
against the named defendant, his action is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, Smith has failed to respond to Judge Papak's order to show cause
within the time allotted for so doing. For the reasons discussed in Judge Papak's order (#8) to
show cause, Smith's action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set fo1th above, Smith's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 24th day of June, 2015.
~~
Honorable Michael Simon
United States District Judge
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?