United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM RE: DKT. NOS. 1, 2
S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs Michael Pectol, Vahina Boudouani, Taj Pectol and
Czar Pectol have filed a complaint against a number of
defendants, including multiple courts and police departments
in and outside of California. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint
claims that defendants have violated over twenty statutes,
several of them federal criminal statutes, and “other
at 7. Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of “$40,
011, 888, 000, 000, 000.” Id. at 15.
Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Dkt. No. 2.
Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in
forma pauperis if it is satisfied that the would-be
plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the
action and that his action is not frivolous or malicious. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787
F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Having reviewed
Plaintiff's application, the Court finds that he is
unable to pay the full amount of fees, costs or give
security. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (“An
affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient
where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs
and still afford the necessities of life.”).
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the action is legally
frivolous and accordingly DENIES the motion to proceed in
1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in forma
pauperis complaint before directing the United States
Marshal to serve the complaint. Escobedo, 787 F.3d
at 1234 & n.7. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a
claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112
(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1127-31 (9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must include a
“short and plain statement, ” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotation omitted). A plaintiff must provide the
grounds that entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Because Plaintiffs
are pro se, the Court construes their pleadings liberally and
affords them the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v.
Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th
Cir. 1988); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.”). The Court is not, however, required to
accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory,
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001).
complaint fails to provide the required short and plain
statement containing sufficient factual matter to support a
cognizable claim. Despite its length, the “statement of
claim” in the complaint fails to state a cognizable
claim against any defendant as required by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. For example, there is no private right of
action under the federal criminal statutes listed in the
complaint, and Plaintiffs therefore cannot pursue alleged
criminal violations in a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v.
Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming
dismissal of claims brought under criminal provisions that
“provide[d] no basis for civil liability”);
Rowland v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 362 F. App'x
596 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of claims under 18
U.S.C. §§ 1512-13 “because those statutes do
not provide a private right of action”); Ross v.
Orange Cty. Bar Ass'n, 369 F.Appx. 868 (9th Cir.
2010) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim because
he “had no separate private right of action for mail
fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341”). For this reason,
Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek or obtain a
“criminal complaint” or “arrest
warrants” in this case, and are directed to stop
attempting to do so.
another example, state courts are generally absolutely immune
from suit for damages. See Duvall v. Cty. of Kitsap,
260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well
settled that judges are generally immune from suit for money
damages.”); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist.
of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity
from damages for civil rights violations when they perform
tasks that are an integral part of the judicial
summary, the complaint fails to articulate what each
defendant, specifically, is alleged to have done that
violated each specific law or legal standard listed. General
conclusions and assertions are not enough. Even liberally
construed, Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to
state a claim on which relief can be granted. “Although
a pro se litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when
the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings
nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a
defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did
wrong.” Brazil v. United States Dep't of
Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds
that Plaintiffs have failed to meet that minimum threshold
and accordingly DISMISSES the complaint.
these deficiencies, the Court cannot conclusively say at this
stage that amending the complaint would be futile. See
Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.
1995) (“[A] pro se litigant is entitled to notice of
the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend
prior to dismissal of the action.”). If they choose to
file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must do so by no later
than March 23, 2018. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs
must clearly identify: (1) each legal claim; (2) the facts
supporting each claim; and (3) the defendant against whom the
claim is alleged. This clear short and plain statement should
be set out in the complaint itself: attaching documents to
the complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements set
out above. Plaintiffs do not need to re-file a financial
affidavit with the amended complaint, because the Court has
already found that they have established inability to pay the
filing fees. Failure to file an amended ...