Vance v. Shequigten et al

Filing 6

Opinion and Order signed on 2/6/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken: Plaintiff's IFP petition, ECF No. #2 , is GRANTED but the Complaint, ECF No. #1 , is DISMISSED without service on Defendants. Dismissal is with leave to amend and Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time will result in entry of a judgment of dismissal without further notice. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. #3 , is DENIED. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 2/7/2024.) (jk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

JOSEPH D. VANCE

Civ. No. 6:23-cv-01858-AA

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
DIANA SHEQUIGTEN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Pro Se Plaintiff Joseph D. Vance, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s IFP Petition, ECF
No. 2, is GRANTED but the Complaint, ECF No.1, is dismissed with leave to amend
and without service on Defendants. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF
No. 3, is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in United States District
Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for
meaningful access to federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees
associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make
two determinations. First, a court must determine whether the litigant is unable to

Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER

pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, it must assess
whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
With regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the
complaint on the defendants and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal
pleading standards, the complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
claim and “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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. The plausibility
standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. The court is not required to accept legal conclusions, unsupported
by alleged facts, as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is, the court should
construe pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefit of

Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER

any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
1988). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot
be cured by amendment. Id.
DISCUSSION
When assessing an IFP petition, the Court first must determine whether the
plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of indigency. Plaintiff’s IFP petition indicates
that he does not have substantial income or assets. The Court concludes that Plaintiff
has made a sufficient showing of indigency and so the IFP petition will be granted.
However, for the reasons set forth below, the Complaint will be dismissed with leave
to amend but without service on Defendants.
Turning to the substance of the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for “civil
rights torturing act, potential patent theft & embezzlement,” and “planting evidence.”
Compl. 3. Plaintiff explains his claim as follows:
Angelina Staztman is part of the foundry & they run a foster home using
false credentials as forest bliss and Diana Bliss[.] The Business was left
to me they are paying of [sic] cops and DHS workers trying to set me up
to still [sic] It and to still [sic] my DOD patents they are a [sic]
organization[.]
Compl. 3.
The Complaint does not explain who the individual Defendants are, nor does
it clearly explain what the “foundry” is, other than apparently a foster home service.
Plaintiff appears to allege that Angelina Staztman, and perhaps others, stole a
business and possibly unidentified patents from Plaintiff, but the nature of the stolen

Page 3 –OPINION & ORDER

business, the manner of the theft, and what sort of patents are involved remain
unexplained. No conduct relating to the other named Defendants is described in the
Complaint. The Court is left to guess at what specific claims Plaintiff is seeking to
make and against which specific defendants.
This falls below the federal pleading standards and the Complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. As Plaintiff is pro se, dismissal shall be with
leave to amend and Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Order in
which to file an amended complaint. In drafting the amended complaint, Plaintiff
should bear in mind that the Court does not know anything about his situation other
than what he included in his amended pleading. Plaintiff should briefly and clearly
explain who the defendants are, what they have done, and why Plaintiff believes the
defendants should be held liable for his injury.
Finally, the Court denies the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. There is no
constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land,
795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). However, pursuant to § 1915, this Court has
discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent parties in exceptional
circumstances. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Here,
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and so the Court declines to request volunteer
counsel at this time.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s IFP petition, ECF No. 2, is
GRANTED but the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without service on

Page 4 –OPINION & ORDER

Defendants. Dismissal is with leave to amend and Plaintiff shall have thirty (30)
days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised
that failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time will result in entry
of a judgment of dismissal without further notice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment
of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this 6th day of February 2024.
s/ Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge

Page 5 –OPINION & ORDER