Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Legardy v. Unknown

June 16, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed his complaint on June 14, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) Presently before the court is plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but will dismiss his complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350 is required to commence a civil action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may, however, authorize the commencement of an action "without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor" by a person that is unable to pay such fees or provide security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's application and declaration make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the undersigned will grant plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners."); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 ("It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.").

Under the "notice pleading" standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff's complaint must provide, in part, a "short and plain statement" of plaintiff's claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it does not contain "'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). "'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.'" Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). The court accepts "all facts alleged as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 588 F.3d 1237, 1241 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009). The court is "not, however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 1071 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and give the plaintiff an opportunity to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.

Upon review of the complaint, the undersigned will dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the pleading standards described above, but will permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The pleading deficiencies in the complaint are fundamental and preclude the court from ordering service of the complaint.

First, plaintiff's complaint does not name or otherwise identify a defendant from whom plaintiff seeks relief. Thus, even if the court were to permit plaintiff's complaint to be served, there is no identifiable defendant upon whom to serve the complaint. In any amended complaint, plaintiff must name an appropriate defendant from whom he seeks relief.

Second, plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts that would state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, indeed, does not appear to seek any specific form of relief at all. With no offense intended toward plaintiff, plaintiff's complaint is largely unreadable and indecipherable. The facts alleged all appear to relate to the period of 1962 to 1977. The complaint recounts facts including the following: (1) plaintiff joined the Army National Guard, apparently in 1976, and returned from basic training on December 24 of that year; (2) on December 27, 1976, plaintiff was robbed at gunpoint after leaving a bank; (3) plaintiff was married in 1977; (4) plaintiff wrote songs and movies from 1962 until the date he was robbed; and (5) the robbery and something that plaintiff saw on television prompted him to travel to Washington, D.C. on October 28, 1977 to see then-Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill. None of these facts supports a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to any form of relief from any identifiable defendant.

Plaintiff has also attached a hand-written letter from him to United States Congresswoman Doris Matsui, which is dated June 10, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.) As with the complaint, however, the letter sheds no light on what plaintiff's purported claim is or the relief he is seeking. The letter again makes reference to the year 1977 and then-Speaker O'Neill.

Also attached to plaintiff's complaint is a letter from the Social Security Administration, dated June 10, 2010, responding to plaintiff's request for information. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) The letter indicates that plaintiff receives monthly disability benefits. However, nothing contained in this letter or the allegations in the complaint suggests that plaintiff's claim relates to his Social Security benefits.

Additionally, plaintiff's Civil Cover Sheet filed with the court sheds no light on his purported claims. This is because plaintiff failed to complete any portion of the Civil Cover Sheet. (Dkt. No. 1, Doc. No. 1-2.)

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned will dismiss plaintiff's complaint. However, plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and corrects the deficiencies addressed herein. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he shall identify each defendant in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint, and clearly set forth the factual allegations against each such defendant showing entitlement to relief, as well as the relief sought.

Plaintiff shall also specify a basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, original federal subject matter ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.