The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND (Docs. No. 1, 2)
On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff Jeffrey J. Jackson filed this action against Ovanes Kutnerian, individually and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Fresno Guest Home Profit Sharing Plan; Xencare, Inc., dba the Fresno Guest Home Profit Sharing Plain; Gregory L. Altounian; Margaret Mims, individually and in her official capacity as Fresno County Sheriff; James Dimon, individually, and in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board/CEO of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Deborah P. Briqnac, individually, and in her official capacity as President/Director of California Reconveyance Company; and California Reconveyance Company (collectively "Defendants"). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days leave to amend.
Plaintiff alleges that on September 21, 1989, he purchased residential real property located at 6564 Rowell Avenue, Fresno, California (the "Property"). (Doc. 1, ¶ 68.) Plaintiff apparently secured a mortgage on the Property. (Doc. 1 ¶ 69 ("Plaintiff purchased the land and property through a currency exchange of their Promissory Note with Home Savings and Loan.").) A non-judicial trustee sale ostensibly occurred in January 2013, but Plaintiff asserts Defendants failed to provide him with a "Bona Fide Genuine Original Wet Ink Signature Promissory Note," and Defendants are "barred from selling Plaintiff's real land and property until all matters concerning the Bona Fide Genuine Original Wet Ink Signature Promissory Note are settled and/or dismissed by this Court." (Doc. 1, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff contends that the non-judicial foreclosure was unlawful and "based on the felonious acts of filing numerous false and/or forge documents in a California public office by Defendants, as well as fraudulent and [secret] eviction action in a court without proper jurisdiction and venue, lack of disclosure, void of due process, lack of due process, of insufficient service and insufficient process, of improper service and improper process . . . . " (Doc. 1, p. 1-2.)Plaintiff alleges that "[t]here is no factual evidence that Plaintiff ever defaulted on Defendants' and Plaintiff's transaction." (Doc. 1, ¶ 13(m).) Plaintiff contends that Defendants have committed unspecified felonious acts to unlawfully foreclose on Plaintiff's real land and property and failed to perfect the foreclosure by refusing to return the "Bona Fide Genuine Original Promissory Note."
A. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Along with the complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed without the prepayment of fees. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrates that Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without prepayment of filing fees and is therefore GRANTED.
In cases where the plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all ...