Hummasti v. Republic of Pakistan et al
Opinion and Order: I GRANT the Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [ECF 1 ], and for the reasons discussed above, I DISMISS the Complaint [ECF 2] with prejudice. Signed on 1/7/2022 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 1/7/2022.) (kms)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN MAURITZ HUMMASTI,
OPINION AND ORDER
REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, et al.,
Plaintiff John Mauritz Hummasti brings this action against Defendants Republic of
Pakistan, Zahra Biloo, and Twitter. Mr. Humamasti has applied to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP"). I GRANT his Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [ECF 1]. However, I DISMISS his
Complaint [ECF 2] with prejudice.
I must dismiss a complaint filed IFP before service of process if it fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain (1) a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, (2) a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Page 2 of 3
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A "complaint 'must
provide sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing
party to defend itself effectively."' Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 824 F.3d
1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2016) (alteration accepted) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216
(9th Cir. 2011)). The factual allegations must "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Starr,
652 F.3d at 1216. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability
requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."
Courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally and give plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). "Although a prose
litigant ... may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those
pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice
of what it is that it allegedly did wrong." Brazil v. US. Dep't ofNavy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir.
1995). "Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, ... a prose litigant
is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to
dismissal of the action." Lucas v. Dep 't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245,248 (9th Cir. 1995).
Here, Mr. Hummasti's complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8. Of the rule's three requirements,
his complaint meets only two: it contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
Court's jurisdiction and a demand for the relief sought. [ECF 2] at 5, 8. However, the complaint
fails to demonstrate Mr. Hummasti is entitled to relief. See [ECF 2] at 5-8.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
Page 3 of 3
I dismiss Mr. Hummasti's complaint with prejudice because he will be unable to amend
his pleadings to demonstrate he is entitled to relief. Simply put, the Court cannot grant Mr.
Hummasti the relief he seeks. Twitter is a private corporation and therefore unable to violate an
individual's First Amendment right to free speech. Further, the Court cannot grant Mr.
Hummasti the injunctive relief he seeks against Zahra Biloo or the Government of Pakistan
based off of the facts alleged. The complaint cites no law that could support such an action, nor
does one exist.
I GRANT the Application for Leave to Proceed IFP [ECF 1], and for the reasons
discussed above, I DISMISS the Complaint [ECF 2] with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
of January, 2022.
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?