Le v. Aznoe

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs have requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. The request will be denied because (1) the affidavit fails to provide the required information, and (2) the complaint, in its current form, is frivolous.

         I. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THE IFP APPLICATION

         Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis application does not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiffs disclose that they received money from “Any other sources” during the past 12 months. ECF No. 2 at 1. However, plaintiffs fail to disclose “the amount received and what you expect you will continue to receive, ” although they do identify the sources of the funds, namely “SSI, SSA, IHSS, Financial (UC Davis full time).” See Id. at 1-2. Without the requested income information, the court cannot determine if plaintiffs meet the requirements for filing IFP.

         II. SCREENING

         Where “plaintiff’s claim appears to be frivolous on the face of the complaint, ” the district court may “deny[] plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs must assist the court in making this determination by drafting their complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.

         Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiffs are entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiffs, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiffs’ claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

         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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001).

         Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

         A. The Complaint

         The complaint is extremely difficult to read. The allegations consist principally of partial or indecipherable sentences.^[1] The court has nevertheless extracted as much information as it can from the complaint, and sets forth the alleged facts as best it can. The allegations are presumed to be true only for purposes of this screening.

         It appears that plaintiff Le was involved in an accident on January 4, 2013, that caused her to become disabled. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 7. As best the court can tell, plaintiff Le sued defendant Aznoe in Yolo County Superior Court on December 20, 2014 for personal injury. Complaint at 34 (Exhibit: Superior Court Complaint). The case was transferred to Sacramento County Superior Court. Complaint at 33 (Exhibit: Yolo County Appeals Clerk Declaration). The complaint seems to allege that in Superior Court, plaintiff Le was told that the court had no authority over the case. Complaint at 5, 86 (Exhibit: Witness Statement). Plaintiff Le took her case to the California Court of Appeal, Third District, in Sacramento, but the court did not allow her a hearing, or to “submit [a] full case.” Complaint at 5. Plaintiff took her case to the California Supreme Court, which denied review, and also refused a hearing. Complaint at 5, 15 (Exhibit: denial of petition for review by California Supreme Court).

         Plaintiffs sue “Raye P. J, ” alleged to be a “Judge of the Court Third district, ” and “Deena Fawceet, ” alleged to be the Clerk of that court. Complaint at 6. Plaintiffs allege that the judge “was not equal and fair, he did not see and hear our voice, he did not seat on the chair in the room at Public Court, he was made pain and hurt for us.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that the Clerk abused her office, lied and cheated, hid information on the court’s system, and failed to stop illegal actions.” Complaint at 7.

         Plaintiffs sue “Frank A. Mcguire Clerk, ” “Cantil-Sakaye” and “Janell, Jaime, ” apparently of the California Supreme Court. Complaint at 7. It appears that plaintiffs sue these defendants because they did not give ...