Cleveland v. United States Department of Agriculture

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 9, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01255
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9

10 TIMOTHY CLEVELAND, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01255-APG-NJK 11 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 12 v.

13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 14 AGRICULTURE, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has also submitted a 18 complaint. Docket No. 1-1. 19 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 20 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 21 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in 22 forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 II. Screening the Complaint 24 A. Standards 25 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 26 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 27 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 1 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 2 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 3 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 4 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 7 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 8 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 9 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 11 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 12 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 13 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 14 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 15 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 16 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 17 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 18 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 19 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 20 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 21 B. Equal Credit Opportunity Act 22 Courts in this circuit have held that, to state a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity 23 Act, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for credit 24 with defendants; (3) he qualified for credit; and (4) he was denied credit despite being qualified. 25 See Harvey v. Bank of Am., N.A., 906 F. Supp. 2d 982, 990-91 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (dismissing 26 Plaintiff's ECOA claim as insufficiently pled with leave to amend) (citation omitted); see also 27 Evan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1472102 (D. Nev. April 3, 2019). 28 1 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 2 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq. (“ECOA”) when they failed to implement the USDA National Appeals 3 Division Final Agency Decision as required under the Administrative Procedure Act. Docket No. 4 1-1 at 3-4. Plaintiff submits that he applied for financial assistance under the USDA Farm Service 5 Agency (“FSA”) micro-loan program and, on August 20, 2015, the FSA Senior Loan Officer 6 denied his loan application. Id. at 5. Plaintiff submits that, on September 14, 2015, he appealed 7 the Agency’s decision to the USDA National Appeals Division (“NAD”) and, on March 1, 2016, 8 the NAD Administrative Law Judge made a final determination that the FSA decision to deny his 9 loan application was erroneous. Id. Plaintiff submits that after that, under direction of the FSA 10 State Executive Director, the FSA failed to implement the NAD final determination. Id. Plaintiff 11 submits that, on March 2, 2016, he was informed by the Farm Loan Chief that the agency would 12 wait until the USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights completed the 13 discrimination complaint Plaintiff submitted. Id. 14 The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to plead the required elements of an ECOA claim. 15 Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for 16 credit, and that he was denied credit despite being qualified. In light of the above, the complaint 17 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 18 III. Conclusion 19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall not be 21 required to pay the filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400.00). Plaintiff is permitted 22 to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any 23 additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave 24 to proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of 25 subpoenas at government expense. 26 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket. 27 3. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff will have until August 28 23, 2019, to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, 1 Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original 2 complaint) in order to make the amended complaint complete. This is because, as a 3 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15- 4 1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any 5 prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no 6 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 7 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be 8 sufficiently alleged. 9 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this 10 case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 9, 2019 13 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28