Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Security Pacific Bank

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 9, 2017

HURSEL FLOYD MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. Screening Requirement

         Pursuant 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).

         II. Pleading Standard

         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). 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. at 677-78.

         III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

         Plaintiff’s 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.

         He asks 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.

         He 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.

         IV. Analysis

         Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed on several grounds.

         First, 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 Plaintiff’s allegations.

         Second, 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.