United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Goods seeks to proceed pro se and in forma
pauperis in this action against the Bakersfield Police
Department for a violation of his civil rights. (Doc. 1, 3)
Because Plaintiff fails to clearly identify the cause of
action upon which he seeks to proceed, or to allege facts
sufficient for the Court to find he states a cognizable
claim, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Proceeding in forma pauperis
Court may authorize the commencement of an action without
prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person
. . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Court reviewed the financial status affidavit
(Doc. 3), and finds the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) are satisfied. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to review the complaint, and shall dismiss the
complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails to
state a claim on 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). A plaintiff's claim
is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not
there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading stating a claim for
relief must include a statement affirming the court's
jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand
for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and
pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent
standards” than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).
complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the
plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner.
Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, a plaintiff must identify the
grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it
demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Conclusory
and vague allegations do not support a cause of action.
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation].
The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
[Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
“merely consistent with” a defendant's
liability, it “stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). When
factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume
their truth and determine whether the facts would make the
plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions in the
pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth.
Court has a duty to dismiss a case at any time it determines
an action fails to state a claim, “notwithstanding any
filing fee that may have been paid.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915e(2). Accordingly, a court “may act on its own
initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss
it for failure to state a claim.” See Wong v.
Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 5 C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure, § 1357 at 593 (1963)). However, leave to
amend a complaint may be granted to the extent deficiencies
of the complaint can be cured by an amendment. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
alleges that he “was sitting in front of the Hungry
Hunters Restaurant … enjoying his solitude and
personal space” when a Bakersfield Police Officer
approached him. (Doc. 1 at 3) Plaintiff asserts he was
“coerced into identifying himself, ” after which
the officer “falsely and repeatedly called the
plaintiff a child molester and filthy jack ass.”
(Id.) Plaintiff contends the officer was