United States District Court, E.D. California
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
Alvarez Serrano (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed the Complaint
commencing this action on March 6, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
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.
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
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.
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
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
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).
Failure to State a Claim for Relief
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