1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLIVIA ARMOUR Case No.: 3:23-cv-02074-JES-VET CHANEL E. ARMOUR, 12 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 13 AMEND AND WITH PREJUDICE v. 14 FIDELITY SELECT TECHNOLOGY [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 15 PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 16 CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES FUND; FIDELITY NEW MILLENIUM FUND; 17 FIDELITY GROWTH & INCOME 18 FUND; FIDELITY GOVERNMENT INCOME FUND; FIDELITY PURITAN 19 FUND; FIDELITY GNMA FUND; 20 SELECT TECH HARDWARE PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY TREND 21 FUND; FIDELITY INVESTMENT 22 MONEY MARKET TAX EXEMPT PORTFOLIO CLASS I; SELECT 23 ENERGY PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 24 EQUITY INCOME FUND; FIDELITY GROWTH COMP ANY FUND; 25 SELECT SEMICONDUCTOR 26 PORTFOLIO; SELECT CONSUMER STAPLES PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 27 ADVISOR GLOBAL CAPITAL 28 APPRECIATION FUND CLASS I; 1 SELECT CHEMICALS PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY ADVISOR INCOME FUND- 2 CLASS I, 3 Defendants. 4
5 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Olivia Armour’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended 6 Complaint. ECF Nos. 9, 10. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to 7 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 8 state a claim. ECF No. 8. Accordingly, the Court advised Plaintiff that if she chose to 9 amend her Complaint to cure deficiencies she should do so within 30 days. Id. Because 10 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not address deficiencies, let alone cure them, the 11 Court DISMISSES the Amended Complaint. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 On November 08, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action 14 against Defendants, appearing to raise claims related to invasion of privacy, identity theft, 15 stalking, attempted murder of her youngest child, and murder of her oldest child. Plaintiff 16 alleges that “Fidelity happens to have access to accounts numbers, birth certificates, any 17 accolades of accomplishments attached with numbers reflect my being the true ownership 18 of such accounts and information for myself and my daughters, which the perpetrators 19 has utilized over the years at their discretions and is being utilized for monetary gain and 20 economic development currently without my consent.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges 21 that Defendants have acquired a significant amount of information about her dating back 22 to her teenage years, which constitute as stalking, invasion of privacy, and identity theft. 23 Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that she and her daughters have suffered from Defendants’ 24 alleged conduct “over the years but was never able to keep steady and stable employment 25 for my life goals for ourselves for our future to become productive law-abiding citizens in 26 America.” Id. Plaintiff further claims, in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, “I have been 27 fighting for my life and the rights of my life for many years, organizations forcing human 28 1 trafficking upon me and my children for two decades not to mention because I refuse to 2 comply with their standards they began to target my children, it was bad enough they 3 tried to murder my youngest first and when that failed they targeted my oldest and 4 murdered her all because I wanted to work for a living more importantly, they took 5 everything from me, every job, bank account, insurance, position with 401k, retirement 6 plans, my apartments, my vehicles, demolished any goals in life, destroyed my career as a 7 Herbal Practitioner and now this.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff seeks damages for “half of everything 8 they have accumulated at my expense and my deceased daughter Chanel E. Armour 9 expense.” Id. 10 On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff applied to proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 11 4. The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissed her Original Complaint, 12 with leave to amend, on January 30, 2024. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed an Amended 13 Complaint on February 14, 2024. ECF No. 9. Approximately a month later, on March 27, 14 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the Amended Complaint attaching a civil cover sheet. ECF No. 15 10. The Court conducts a mandatory screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint below. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A. Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 18 Upon review of an IFP application, district courts must screen the complaint to 19 ensure it states a claim, is not frivolous, and does not seek monetary relief against a 20 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 21 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A “frivolous” complaint “lacks an 22 arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 23 1827, 1831-32 (1989). To survive screening, all complaints must include a “short and 24 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 8(a)(2). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 26 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 28 1 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 2 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that a complaint fails to state a claim if it lacks a 3 cognizable legal theory or does not allege enough facts under a cognizable legal theory); 4 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “[t]he language 5 of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 12(b)(6).”). 7 Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 8 as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 9 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context- 11 specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 12 common sense.” Id. at 679. “[T]he pleading standard . . . demands more than an 13 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678. Thus, the “mere 14 possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting the Iqbal plausibility standard. Id. at 15 679; see Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 Upon screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds that she still 17 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s 18 Amended Complaint fares no better than her Original Complaint. In fact, it is 19 substantively no different. Plaintiff’s allegations remain disjointed, incoherent, and 20 largely unintelligible. Plaintiff did not cure any of the deficiencies in her Original 21 Complaint, namely, Plaintiff fails to provide facts to support, what appears to be, claims 22 against Defendants of invasion of privacy, identity theft, stalking, attempted murder of 23 her youngest child, and murder of her oldest child. Plaintiff continues to rely on statutes 24 that cannot support a civil action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLIVIA ARMOUR Case No.: 3:23-cv-02074-JES-VET CHANEL E. ARMOUR, 12 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 13 AMEND AND WITH PREJUDICE v. 14 FIDELITY SELECT TECHNOLOGY [ECF Nos. 9, 10] 15 PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 16 CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES FUND; FIDELITY NEW MILLENIUM FUND; 17 FIDELITY GROWTH & INCOME 18 FUND; FIDELITY GOVERNMENT INCOME FUND; FIDELITY PURITAN 19 FUND; FIDELITY GNMA FUND; 20 SELECT TECH HARDWARE PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY TREND 21 FUND; FIDELITY INVESTMENT 22 MONEY MARKET TAX EXEMPT PORTFOLIO CLASS I; SELECT 23 ENERGY PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 24 EQUITY INCOME FUND; FIDELITY GROWTH COMP ANY FUND; 25 SELECT SEMICONDUCTOR 26 PORTFOLIO; SELECT CONSUMER STAPLES PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY 27 ADVISOR GLOBAL CAPITAL 28 APPRECIATION FUND CLASS I; 1 SELECT CHEMICALS PORTFOLIO; FIDELITY ADVISOR INCOME FUND- 2 CLASS I, 3 Defendants. 4
5 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Olivia Armour’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended 6 Complaint. ECF Nos. 9, 10. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to 7 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 8 state a claim. ECF No. 8. Accordingly, the Court advised Plaintiff that if she chose to 9 amend her Complaint to cure deficiencies she should do so within 30 days. Id. Because 10 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not address deficiencies, let alone cure them, the 11 Court DISMISSES the Amended Complaint. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 On November 08, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action 14 against Defendants, appearing to raise claims related to invasion of privacy, identity theft, 15 stalking, attempted murder of her youngest child, and murder of her oldest child. Plaintiff 16 alleges that “Fidelity happens to have access to accounts numbers, birth certificates, any 17 accolades of accomplishments attached with numbers reflect my being the true ownership 18 of such accounts and information for myself and my daughters, which the perpetrators 19 has utilized over the years at their discretions and is being utilized for monetary gain and 20 economic development currently without my consent.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges 21 that Defendants have acquired a significant amount of information about her dating back 22 to her teenage years, which constitute as stalking, invasion of privacy, and identity theft. 23 Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that she and her daughters have suffered from Defendants’ 24 alleged conduct “over the years but was never able to keep steady and stable employment 25 for my life goals for ourselves for our future to become productive law-abiding citizens in 26 America.” Id. Plaintiff further claims, in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, “I have been 27 fighting for my life and the rights of my life for many years, organizations forcing human 28 1 trafficking upon me and my children for two decades not to mention because I refuse to 2 comply with their standards they began to target my children, it was bad enough they 3 tried to murder my youngest first and when that failed they targeted my oldest and 4 murdered her all because I wanted to work for a living more importantly, they took 5 everything from me, every job, bank account, insurance, position with 401k, retirement 6 plans, my apartments, my vehicles, demolished any goals in life, destroyed my career as a 7 Herbal Practitioner and now this.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff seeks damages for “half of everything 8 they have accumulated at my expense and my deceased daughter Chanel E. Armour 9 expense.” Id. 10 On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff applied to proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 11 4. The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismissed her Original Complaint, 12 with leave to amend, on January 30, 2024. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed an Amended 13 Complaint on February 14, 2024. ECF No. 9. Approximately a month later, on March 27, 14 2024, Plaintiff re-filed the Amended Complaint attaching a civil cover sheet. ECF No. 15 10. The Court conducts a mandatory screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint below. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A. Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 18 Upon review of an IFP application, district courts must screen the complaint to 19 ensure it states a claim, is not frivolous, and does not seek monetary relief against a 20 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 21 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A “frivolous” complaint “lacks an 22 arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 23 1827, 1831-32 (1989). To survive screening, all complaints must include a “short and 24 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 8(a)(2). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 26 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 28 1 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 2 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that a complaint fails to state a claim if it lacks a 3 cognizable legal theory or does not allege enough facts under a cognizable legal theory); 4 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “[t]he language 5 of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 12(b)(6).”). 7 Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 8 as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 9 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context- 11 specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 12 common sense.” Id. at 679. “[T]he pleading standard . . . demands more than an 13 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 678. Thus, the “mere 14 possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting the Iqbal plausibility standard. Id. at 15 679; see Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 Upon screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds that she still 17 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s 18 Amended Complaint fares no better than her Original Complaint. In fact, it is 19 substantively no different. Plaintiff’s allegations remain disjointed, incoherent, and 20 largely unintelligible. Plaintiff did not cure any of the deficiencies in her Original 21 Complaint, namely, Plaintiff fails to provide facts to support, what appears to be, claims 22 against Defendants of invasion of privacy, identity theft, stalking, attempted murder of 23 her youngest child, and murder of her oldest child. Plaintiff continues to rely on statutes 24 that cannot support a civil action. 25 Even after liberally construing this pro se pleading, this Court is still unable to 26 discern any legal or factual basis upon which relief can be granted, nor how these claims 27 establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622, 678 (2009); Bell 28 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007). Because Plaintiff fails to cure deficiencies or establish subject matter 2 jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the Amended Complaint. 3 Ht. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons above, the Court finds any further opportunities to cure futile. 5 || Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and WITH 6 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: April 22, 2024 10 Sa— □□□ J,. 11 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28