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.

Horne v. G4S Security

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 5, 2019

MICHAEL HORNE, Plaintiff,
v.
G4S SECURITY, Defendant.

          ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE LONG FORM APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND SIGNED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)

         Michael Edward Horne (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed an unsigned complaint in this action and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

         A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, Plaintiff's application was not adequately completed. Plaintiff indicates that he receives gross wages of $900.00 per month. He also states that he receives other income in the form of rents and disability or worker's compensation payments but did not indicate the amount that he receives from these sources. Therefore, the Court is unable to determine if Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this matter.

         Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) - AO 239. If Plaintiff is unwilling to complete and submit the long form application, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full.

         B Unsigned Complaint

         The complaint that Plaintiff filed is this action is not signed. Unsigned documents cannot be considered by the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Plaintiff's complaint shall be stricken from the record on that ground.

         To assist Plaintiff in filing his complaint, Plaintiff is provided with the following legal standards.

         1. Rule 8 Pleading Standard

         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)). A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff cannot state a claim in this action by merely setting forth his causes of action.

         Under Twombly and Iqbal “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This requires factual content for the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. A complaint stops short of the line between probability and the possibility of relief where the facts pled are merely consistent with a defendant's liability. Id. Further, while the court is to accept all “well pleaded factual allegations” in the complaint as true, id. at 679, it is not bound to accept as true labels, conclusions, formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The conclusory allegations in the complaint are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.

         Further, a claim for relief must contain a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3). Plaintiff's complaint should include the relief that he is seeking in this action.

         2. Section 1983

         Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Plaintiff is advised that to state a claim under section 1983, he is required to show that (1) each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long, 442 F.3d at 1185. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, and therefore, each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. To state a claim, ...


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.