United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 10)
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.
complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he
was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) His first amended
complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 10.)
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, once again, indecipherable. His complaint is
comprised of a single page of randomly assembled legal
phrases. It is devoid of factual allegations. He attaches
various documents to his complaint, the import of which are
not clear. At best, the documents may be read to reflect that
Plaintiff has minimal income and is suffering financial
difficulties, presumably at the hands of Deefendants.
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, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case, the
complaint, even when construed liberally, fails to meet the
most minimal standards required by Rule 8.
in order to state a claim in a United States District Court,
Plaintiff must establish federal jurisdiction. Federal courts
can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States
Constitution and Congress authorize them to adjudicate. These
generally are limited to cases involving diversity of
citizenship (in which the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75, 000 and is between citizens of different
states), or a federal question, or to which the United States
is a party. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; See
also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375
(1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545
(1989). Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal
jurisdiction exists as the United States is not a party in
this action and no ...