Sund v. Cubes Self Storage

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-Plaintiff may filean amended complaint no later than July 21, 2017. Failure to timely respond and/or to adequately plead sufficient facts and allegations in support of his claim will result in dismissal with prejudice. See Order for additional details. Signed by Judge David Sam on 6/28/17. (jmr)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
**********************************************************
Matthew Sund,

)
Case No. 2:17-cv-00537 DS
Plaintiff,
vs.

)
)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

CUBES SELF STORAGE,

)
)

Defendant.
**********************************************************
Plaintiff Matthew Sund, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a Civil
Rights Complaint purporting to allege violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), apparently due to
having his month-to-month self storage unit lease terminated.
To establish a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), a plaintiff must show
“(1) the existence of a conspiracy (2) intended to deny [the plaintiff] equal protection under
the laws or equal privileges and immunities of the laws (3) resulting in an injury or
deprivation of federally-protected rights, and (4) an overt act in furtherance of the object
of the conspiracy.” Murray v. City of Sapulpa, 45 F.3d 1417, 1423 (10th Cir. 1995)
(citations omitted). Moreover, § 1985(3) only applies to “conspiracies motivated by some
racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.” Tilton v.
Richardson, 6 F.3d 683, 685 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 1093 (1994). The other class based animus does not, however, include
conspiracies motivated by economic or commercial bias. Id.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint with the deference due his pro se
status. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is directed to dismiss such a case at any time if
it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court on its own also may dismiss a
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Hall, 935 F.2d at
1109-10.
Although the pleadings in pro se cases are to be liberally construed, “[t]he broad
reading of the Plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging sufficient
facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id. While Plaintiff need not
describe every fact in specific detail, “conclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based.” Id.

The

Complaint must present sufficient allegations of fact, assumed to be true, that “raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). The complaint must present “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Id. at 550.
The Court concludes that the brief allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint
contain insufficient factual detail to support his purported claim. Among other things,
Plaintiff has failed to allege a conspiracy or that it is motivated by a discriminatory animus.1

Communication to Plaintiff from his prior counsel, attached to his complaint,
suggests that his month-to-month Cubes lease was terminated after notice for reasons
unrelated to discriminatory animus. See Compl. at p. 9.
1

2

Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants him leave, if he so desires, to file
an amended complaint no later than July 21, 2017. Failure to timely respond and/or
to adequately plead sufficient facts and allegations in support of his claim will result in
dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this28th day of June, 2017
BY THE COURT:

DAVID SAM
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3