The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. BattagliaU.S. District Judge
Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, Revoking In Forma Pauperis and Denying Motion to Reconsider Dismissal Order [Doc. Nos. 18 and 20]
Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), (Doc. No. 18-1), and the Plaintiff's motion to rehear dismissal order, (Doc. No. 20). For the reasons stated herein, the sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint for failure to state a claim and DENIES the Plaintiff's motion to rehear the dismissal order.
On July 21, 2011, the Plaintiff, Mel. M. Marin, a non prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against approximately 24 defendants.*fn1 (Doc. No. 1.) In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed numerous torts including, conversion, fraud and deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, personal injury, deceptive trade practices, financial abuse, false representation, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the civil rights act, and wrongful death. (Id.)
Simultaneously, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Local Rule 3.2(a). (Doc. No. 2.) On September 29, 2011, this Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis because his motion failed to state an inability to pay costs or give security with particularity, definiteness, and certainty. (Doc. No. 3.) The Plaintiff thereafter submitted additional information regarding his economic status and this Court granted his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on December 12, 2011. (Doc. No. 8.) On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Direct Marshal to Serve. (Doc. No. 14.) On May 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing. (Doc. No. 16.) The Plaintiff was granted 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies. (Id. at 7.) On July 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed his FAC. (Doc. No. 18.) In the FAC, the Plaintiff includes approximately sixty-two Defendants and alleges thirty-four causes of action. (Id.) The Plaintiff requests relief in the form of monetary damages against all the Defendants for varying reasons and amounts,*fn2 for a total of over 6.5 billion dollars in damages.
A court may dismiss, sua sponte, a case at any time if it determines the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short an plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at 678. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 678. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
I. Unauthorized Practice of Law
In the Plaintiff's FAC, he maintains that he brings this action on behalf of himself, his deceased mother and deceased father. (Doc. No. 18-1, at 10.) The Plaintiff claims that he has standing to sue on their behalf because they bestowed upon him power of attorney before they died. (Id.) However, "[a]lthough a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (1987) (citations omitted). "While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, [h]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself." Johns v. Cnty of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Plaintiff's power of attorney can not correct this deficiency. Johns, 818 F.2d at 876. If the Court were to allow the Plaintiff to continue litigating his parents claims pro se the Plaintiff would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. All claims on behalf of the Plaintiff's deceased mother and father must be dismissed without prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to litigate these claims he must retain a licensed attorney to do so.
II. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted
Even if the Plaintiff could appear on behalf of his deceased parents,
his FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Due
to the length of the Plaintiff's FAC,*fn3 the number
of Defendants*fn4 and causes of action,*fn5
and in the interest of time and judicial economy, the Court
will address the causes of action together. The Plaintiff's
allegations are too numerous for this Court to describe and are, at
times, incomprehensible. The Plaintiff, in essence, alleges that all
62 Defendants conspired to kill and torture his mother so she could
not testify against them for numerous other offences that occurred
over the course of ten years. All of the Plaintiff's claims share the
same defect. The Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory in nature and
lack sufficient factual matter to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading
must contain a short plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 677. The Plaintiff's FAC is lengthy and contains rambling
allegations of the wrongs allegedly done to him, his mother, and his
father over the past 10 years by the sixty-two named Defendants. The
Plaintiff attempts to remedy the defects in his complaint by including
allegations tailored to the elements of the various causes of action.
However, these allegations simply offer conclusory labels in a
formulaic recitation of the elements of the causes of action. This is
not enough to remedy the defects in the Plaintiff's complaint. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The
Plaintiff simply gives general conclusions that the Defendants have
harmed him and he is entitled to relief and that the Defendants
conspired to commit these wrongs against him, and are therefore liable
for each other's actions. However, the Plaintiff fails to explain this
alleged conspiracy. He merely gives the general conclusion that all
sixty-two Defendants conspired to kill his mother to stop her from
testifying in numerous alleged court cases and they are therefore all
liable. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds the conclusory
nature of the Plaintiff's claims fail to provide sufficient factual
support to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court further notes that the Plaintiff has an extensive history of litigation. This history includes the Plaintiff's habit of abusing the courts and the legal ...