Ben Ventura v. Fran Vella-Marrone, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 BEN VENTURA, No. 2:26-cv-1703-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FRAN VELLA-MARRONE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ben Ventura proceeds without counsel1 and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening and plaintiff requests to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing 20 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the complaint fails to state a claim. The complaint must 21 be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 27 1 This case is referred to the undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 636. 1 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 2 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 4 Plaintiff’s complaint names three individuals as defendants and indicates he seeks relief 5 for an alleged violation of due process. However, the complaint is completely devoid of factual 6 allegations. (ECF No. 1.) 7 III. The Complaint Must be Dismissed 8 As it pleads no specific factual allegations, the complaint fails to state a claim. Pro se 9 pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 10 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, 11 unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 12 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not 13 suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft 14 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff 15 must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 16 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 17 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 19 IV. Conclusion and Order 20 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 21 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the 22 defect… a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to 23 amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An amended complaint should be titled “First Amended 24 Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete by itself without 25 reference to any prior pleading. 26 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 28 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 1 3. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 2 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 4 with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 | Dated: May 14, 2026 Card ft 4 LA g. ae

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 | 8 ven26er1703.sem 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28