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.

Serrano v. Bank of America, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 7, 2018

SONIA ALVAREZ SERRANO, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER (ECF NO. 1) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS

         Sonia Alvarez Serrano (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 6, 2018. (ECF No. 1).

         On March 9, 2018, the Court screened the Complaint and determined that it failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 4). Specifically, the Court concluded that the Complaint merely listed causes of action without sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim. Id. The screening order directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she wishes to stand on the Complaint, subject to the issuance of findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge, within thirty days of service of the order. Id. The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or to notify the court that she wishes to stand on the Complaint could result in the dismissal of this action. Id.

         The thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or notified the Court that she wishes to stand on the Complaint. According, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff may file objections within twenty-one days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review of an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted, ” is “frivolous or malicious, ” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

         In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

         II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

         The Complaint reads as follows:

Litigation on wrongful foreclosure and many violations federal statutes. Fair Housing violation, HARP, Keep Your Home Emotional Distress Fraud, larceny, theft, false promises. . . .
Securiazation [sic] -violations RICO Quiet Title Judgment, Summary Judgement. Defendants defaulted 7 times, Declaratory Judgement, Motion for Adjudication. Recovery and Compensation for defendants aggressions to plaintiff, Fair Due process Jury Trial over 100 claims over hundred violations Federal question.

         Plaintiff also attaches to the Complaint what appears to be a 137-page long motion filed in Alvarez v. Bank of America, Case No. 3:17-mc-80149-VC (N.D. Ca. Nov. 30, 2017).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Failure to State a Claim for Relief

         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 that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678. Furthermore, a plaintiff bears the burden of separately setting forth her legal claims, and ...


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.