The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel.*fn1 On July 1, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint, an application for a temporary restraining order, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1-2.) Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order was denied on July 1, 2011, on the grounds that "plaintiff appears to have no likelihood of success of the merits of his complaint." (Order, July 1, 2011, at 2, Dkt. No. 3.)
Presently before the court is plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned grants plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismisses his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Such dismissal is without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint.
I. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff's application and declaration make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 1915(2). Accordingly, the undersigned grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
II. Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint
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 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, the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous if that claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
In assessing whether a plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the court adheres to the "notice pleading" standards. Under the notice pleading standards 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), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1053 (2010). 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, 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 of the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Corrie v. Caterpillar, 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007). 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.
Here, plaintiff's one-page complaint, which was combined with his application for a temporary restraining order, alleges that plaintiff's property located at 420 Las Palmas Avenue, in Sacramento, California, was sold while plaintiff "was in protection of bankruptcy Ch. 13 Case-11-21458-B-13J," and that the sale occurred without notice to plaintiff. (See Compl. at 1.) Attached to plaintiff's complaint is a "Notice to Quit" addressed to plaintiff from defendant. Plaintiff requests that "due process of law be restored." (Id.)
Senior United States District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton's order denying plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order directs the result in regards to the screening of the complaint.*fn2 In his order, Judge Karlton stated, in part:
[T]he complaint does not state any basis for the relief sought, other than the allegation that the property was sold on June 3, 2011, while the bankruptcy was on-going. However, the records of the bankruptcy court establish that the referred-to bankruptcy case was dismissed in its entirety on April 14, 2011 (Bankr. Dkt. No. 45), and that plaintiff's motions for reconsideration were denied, most recently on June 10, 2011 (Bankr. Dkt. No. 77).*fn3
(Order, July 1, 2011, at 1-2.) Consistent with Judge Karlton's order, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for relief that would afford him the relief sought. Accordingly, the undersigned dismisses plaintiff's complaint. However, such dismissal is without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that states a viable claim for relief, if he is able to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ...