United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
NO. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Hursel Floyd Mitchell proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis
in this complaint against Security Pacific Bank, Federal
Credit Union, First Interstate Bank, Bank of America,
Citibank, Valley Oak Bank, and JP Morgan Chase.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an
initial review of the complaint to determine if it states a
cognizable claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised
claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious,"
"fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted," or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
"Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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). Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
allegations are indecipherable. He appears to allege that he
at one time had a loan and an investment portfolio from
financial institutions in Texas that provided weekly deposits
to his account. His social security benefits were committed
to “IHSS” and “DSS.” Plaintiff later
opened accounts with Defendants Security Pacific Bank, First
Interstate Bank, Bank of America, and Federal Credit Union.
The accounts all had assets over $10,000 and
“hidden” assets over $1,000,000. These
institutions also were brokerage firms. The firms offered
legal document services but did not provide them. Plaintiff
appears to allege that he has an account or accounts that
were charged overdraft fees, fines, transaction fees, and
interest, leading to the account or accounts being closed.
that hearings be held based on “SBE” records
concerning the arrests of bankers and mental health holds. He
asks for discovery and for JP Morgan Stanley to be required
to submit documentation.
attaches various documents to his complaint, the import of
which are not clear. Nonetheless, the documents appear to
reflect that Plaintiff underwent a series of financial and
mental health difficulties that led to him becoming homeless.
complaint must be dismissed on several grounds.
the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim if it does not “contain sufficient allegations of
underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the
opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Because
Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible, no
defendant could be expected to defend itself effectively on
the complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The complaint does not contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), and the allegations are not “simple, concise,
and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Although
we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se
litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, ...