Anderson v. Snap Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 14, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00256
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICAH ANDERSON, Case No.: 22-cv-0256-GPC-DEB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 SNAP, INC., MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 Defendant. PAUPERIS

15 (2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 16 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 17

18 [Dkt. Nos. 1, 2] 19 20 On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff Micah Anderson, proceeding pro se, filed a form 21 complaint against Defendant Snap, Inc. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion 22 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) Based on the reasons provided below, 23 the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte 24 DISMISSES the action for failure to state a claim. 25 / / 26 / / 27 1 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 With the exception of an application for writ of habeas corpus, all parties 3 instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States must 4 pay a filing fee of $350 and an administrative fee of $52.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An 5 action may proceed when a plaintiff fails to prepay the fees only if the Court grants the 6 plaintiff leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 7 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 8 1999). To be granted such leave, the plaintiff must submit an affidavit demonstrating 9 their inability to pay the filing fee, and the affidavit must include a complete statement of 10 the plaintiff’s assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 11 Here, Plaintiff has provided a handwritten affidavit in addition to a bank account 12 statement in his name current as of February 22, 2022, a hospital admission record dated 13 May 8, 2019, a Schedule 13G form filed by two major shareholders in Snap Inc., a Form 14 10-Q filed by Snap Inc., and Form 4 SEC filings for some of Snap Inc.’s major 15 shareholders that span from June 2019 to December 2019. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s 16 handwritten affidavit does not expressly include a statement of his assets. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17 8.2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff must include a complete statement of his 18 assets to successfully proceed IFP; such a statement is missing from Plaintiff’s 19 handwritten affidavit. Id. Construed liberally, Plaintiff’s motion can be interpreted to 20 include the bank statement and hospital record that he has provided as attached exhibits. 21 Even so, the motion lacks a complete statement of Plaintiff’s assets. Plaintiff’s bank 22

23 24 1 Effective December 1, 2020, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52 in addition to the $350 filing fee set by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 25 District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). For persons granted leave to proceed IFP, 26 this administrative fee does not apply. Id. 2 Page numbers are based on CM/ECF pagination. 27 1 statement indicates that he has $5.65 in available balance and made a counter credit 2 deposit of $100 in his account on February 11, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1 at 15.) The source of the 3 counter credit is unknown based on the materials Plaintiff has provided. The statement 4 may support the proposition that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing and administrative 5 fees, but it is not by itself sufficient evidence to conclude as such. It is unknown whether 6 Plaintiff has any additional sources of income, additional bank accounts, or assets. 7 Without the provision of further material to contextualize the statement, the bank 8 statement does not by itself satisfy the 1915(a)(1) requirement of a complete statement of 9 assets. Plaintiff’s hospital admission record also does not include any statement of assets 10 or monetary impact on Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 1 at 18.) 11 The attached Schedule 13G, Form 10-Q filing, and Form 4 SEC filings do not 12 relate to or contextualize Plaintiff’s ability to pay, as they do not give any information 13 about Plaintiff. 14 Plaintiff’s bank statement is the only evidence that provides insight into plaintiff’s 15 ability to pay, but Plaintiff has failed to provide a complete statement of his assets. 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP with leave to 17 amend. 18 II. Sua Sponte Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 a. Legal Background 20 A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to § 1915(a) is subject to 21 mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is frivolous or malicious, 22 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 23 defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 24 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 25 are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). § 26 1915(e)(2) requires that a court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to an IFP motion 27 1 sua sponte rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing service of the complaint by 2 the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. 3 The language of 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) parallels that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 12(b)(6). See Lopez, 1127; Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 As such, a sua sponte review of the dismissal of a complaint filed pursuant to an IFP 6 motion is conducted according to the same evaluative standard as that which governs 7 12(b)(6). If the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it must 8 be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides criteria for determining what constitutes a claim for 10 relief. Such a claim must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 11 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This does not mean that a 12 plaintiff needs to provide “detailed factual allegations,” but the rule does require a 13 plaintiff to plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative 14 level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). To state a claim upon 15 which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 16 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 17 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is facially 18 plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference 19 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In basic terms, the complaint 20 needs to have sufficient factual matter underlying a legally actionable claim against a 21 defendant. 22 b. Plaintiff’s Allegations 23 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges this Court exercises both diversity jurisdiction 24 (Dkt. No. 1 at 4) and federal question jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) In his Complaint, 25 Plaintiff seeks the return of the money that he alleges he invested in Snap Inc. (Dkt. No. 1 26 at 6.) While Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no clear demand for a specific amount of 27 1 money, he alludes to Snap Inc. owing him money on the basis that the company is 2 holding his investments contrary to his desire to have the company return these 3 investments to him. On the Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. No. 1-1), Plaintiff categorizes his suit 4 as one involving Securities Fraud and Manipulation. However, nowhere in the Complaint 5 does he identify any specific statute. The federal statutory category nearest to this 6 allegation is 18 U.S.C. § 3301, but the category is so broad that it covers conduct ranging 7 from making misleading statements to violations of Securities and Exchange Commission 8 orders. See 15 U.S.C. § 78ff; see also 15 U.S.C. § 80b-17. As such, it remains unclear 9 what exact claim Plaintiff is making. While it is not included in the Complaint form, 10 Plaintiff alleges in an attached exhibit that he is owed a total of approximately $290,838. 11 (Dkt. No. 1-3 at 2.) Plaintiff does not make clear how this this sum was calculated, and it 12 is not clear that this is indeed the actual amount alleged, as Plaintiff includes numerous 13 dollar amounts for various assets at issue in that exhibit. Plaintiff indicates that his claim 14 arises from an event that occurred on July 16, 2019. He alleges that this event was Snap 15 Inc.’s failure to return his investments to him. 16 c. Analysis 17 i. Jurisdictional Issues 18 If the $290,838 amount is indeed the amount owed and requested here, then 19 Plaintiff’s complaint would satisfy the Amount in Controversy requirement for diversity 20 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As Plaintiff and Snap Inc. are citizens of different 21 States based on information provided by Plaintiff, diversity jurisdiction would be apt here 22 if the facts presented are to be taken to be true. Id. 23 Even if the criteria for diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction have 24 been met, this Court is not the proper venue for this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Neither 25 party resides in the Southern District of California, and no part of the stated events 26 27 1 occurred in the Southern District of California. Even if Plaintiff’s complaint were to have 2 merit, it cannot proceed further in this Court. 3 ii. Sua Sponte Review 4 Beyond jurisdictional and venue issues, Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint do 5 not plausibly establish a claim upon which relief can be granted. His central allegation— 6 that he is owed money on the basis of Snap Inc.’s failure to return his investments—lacks 7 underlying factual matter sufficient for a plausible claim. Anderson has failed to provide 8 sufficient information relevant to his investment in Snap Inc., so an inference regarding 9 Snap Inc.’s liability cannot reasonably be made. The information provided does little to 10 raise the right to relief above a speculative level, as there is no inferential link provided 11 by the facts that plausibly ties Snap Inc.’s liability to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 12 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege a clearly identifiable actionable claim, nor does he 13 provide sufficient factual allegations from which the Court can discern a cause of action. 14 While Plaintiff alludes to Securities Fraud and Manipulation as the basis for his suit (see 15 Dkt. No. 1-1), he does not cite specific statutes or provide additional information in his 16 claim outside of his assertion that Snap Inc. is holding his investments. Without any 17 citation or further specification, the Court cannot find a clearly actionable claim for relief. 18 Absent an actionable claim and sufficient underlying factual matter to render a claim 19 plausible, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a 20 claim with leave to amend. 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 / / 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis and sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state a claim. If 4 || Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, he must do so no later than August 5, 2022. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: July 14, 2022 72 7 Hon. athe Cae g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-cv-0256-GPC-DEB