United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS & FOR REASSIGNMEN TREPORT &
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 13, 2018, Plaintiff Clinton Hendrix filed a
Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Appl., Dkt. No. 3. A district court may
authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if
the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay
the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff submitted the required
documentation demonstrating he is unable to pay the costs of
this action, and it is evident from the Application that his
assets and income are insufficient to enable him to pay the
fees. See Appl. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
as no party has consented to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a District
Judge, with the recommendation that the Complaint be
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
the Court has granted Plaintiff's Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis, it must also review Plaintiff's
Complaint to determine whether the action may be allowed to
proceed. The Court must dismiss the Complaint if it is
frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To
make this determination, courts assess whether there is a
factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong,
“however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984)
(quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings are liberally
construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has
“repeatedly held that a district court should grant
leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was
made, unless it determines that the pleading could not
possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of
a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis
is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before
dismissal. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th
Allegations in the Complaint
appears to allege he is suing on behalf of Teamsters 853.
Compl. at 1 (naming only “Teamsters 853” as
plaintiff); id. at 4 (“Both Berkeley Farms
Management & Teamsters 853 will be served. Then,
Teamsters will represent with Attorney. I must serve both
parties.”). He names as Defendants in the caption
Berkeley Farms Inc. and Dean Foods. Compl. at 2. He alleges
his case belongs in federal court because it involves the
Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Id.
statement of facts, Plaintiff lists the following:
“Breach of contract, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, breach of covenant [of] good faith and
fair dealing, assault and battery, forklift accident,
defective parts.” Id. at 3-4. He alleges he
has been on disability since 2011, and that his disability
was caused by Berkeley Farms. Id. at 4. Under a
claim entitled “wrongful termination, ” he
alleges that Berkeley Farms unlawfully terminated him in
November 2011 because of work-related injuries. Id.
at 5. He also alleges “robbery 2nd degree, assault
& battery” based on “events witness[ed by]
safety manager & union.” Id. He names as a
defendant to the robbery, assault and battery claims Peter
Chewing, who was Superintendent. Chewing used excessive force
and terrorized Hendrix in front of others on June 6, 2011; he
also took Hendrix's personal property. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff was scared for his life. Id. Plaintiff
includes no further allegations to describe the factual basis
for his claims.
Analysis and Screening
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
the complaint set forth a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Rule 8(d)(1) requires that each allegation in a pleading be
“simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996)
(affirming dismissal of complaint that was
“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and
largely irrelevant”). In addition, the complaint must
include facts which are “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). For instance, in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court rejected
conclusory assertions that “petitioners ‘knew of,
condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject
[him]' to harsh conditions of confinement ‘as a
matter of policy, solely on the account of [his] religion,
race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate
penological interest.'” 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009).
The Court reasoned that such allegations were akin to the
“formulaic recitation of the elements” dismissed
in Twombly, and therefore, insufficient to meet Rule
8(a). Id. In doing so, the Court explained,
“[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.” Id. at 678.
No Federal Claims Stated
alleges he disputes several decisions made by his former
employer, and that he experienced a threatening incident at
the hands of his former superintendent, but he fails to
allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the LMRA, 29
U.S.C. §§ 141-197; the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; or
any other ...